pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.19320 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Single-shot quantum neural networks with amplitude estimation

Jaemin Seo
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 02:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum neural networksamplitude estimationquantum machine learningsampling errorsingle-shot inferenceMonte Carlo samplingquantum algorithms
0
0 comments X

The pith

Embedding a trained quantum neural network as an oracle in amplitude estimation yields output estimates with O(1/N) error from one circuit execution.

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

Quantum neural networks normally require many repeated circuit runs because each measurement is probabilistic and conventional averaging improves accuracy only as the square root of the number of runs. This paper replaces that repeated sampling with amplitude estimation by treating the trained network itself as the oracle that prepares the relevant quantum state. The change lets coherent interference replace random sampling, so the error falls linearly with the number of oracle calls rather than with the square root. The result matters on near-term hardware because each shot is expensive in qubit resources and time; cutting the required shots makes inference and training less costly. The work also checks that the method stays workable when noise is present and that the network can still be trained under the new readout.

Core claim

By embedding a trained QNN as a state-preparation oracle within amplitude estimation, the framework estimates outputs through coherent interference, achieving an O(1/N) sampling error even with a single shot, in contrast to the conventional O(1/sqrt(N)) Monte Carlo error.

What carries the argument

Amplitude estimation, with the trained quantum neural network serving as the state-preparation oracle that supplies the amplitude whose square is the desired output probability.

If this is right

  • QNN inference on near-term devices requires far fewer circuit executions to reach a target accuracy.
  • The sampling overhead that currently dominates quantum machine-learning workloads is reduced by a quadratic factor.
  • Noise robustness remains sufficient for the method to be useful on present-day hardware.
  • Training loops for QNNs can be adapted to use the same amplitude-estimation readout without losing the efficiency gain.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same oracle-embedding technique could be applied to other quantum models whose outputs are expectation values or probabilities.
  • Hardware improvements that increase coherence time would directly widen the range of QNN sizes for which single-shot inference works.
  • Classical post-processing of the amplitude-estimation results could be combined with classical machine-learning techniques for hybrid training.

Load-bearing premise

A trained quantum neural network can be turned into a state-preparation oracle for amplitude estimation without circuit depths that exceed available coherence times or that destroy the interference needed for the estimation.

What would settle it

An experiment on real quantum hardware that applies the single-shot QNN procedure and measures output error scaling no better than 1/sqrt(N) with increasing oracle calls would falsify the performance claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.19320 by Jaemin Seo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of the architecture of QNN and our proposed inference framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison of the inference accuracy of the MC-QNN and AE-QNN. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of inference error of MC-QNN and AE-QNN when the quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The loss history during training the MC-QNN (blue) and AE-QNN (orange) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum neural networks (QNNs) suffer from a fundamental sampling bottleneck since quantum measurements are probabilistic, requiring many circuit executions to estimate outputs with sufficient accuracy. Conventional Monte-Carlo (MC) inference exhibits an $\mathcal{O}(1/\sqrt{N})$ sampling error, rendering QNN inference and training costly on near-term quantum hardware, especially where each shot requires expensive qubit generation. This work introduces a "single-shot" QNN framework by integrating quantum amplitude estimation (AE) into the readout stage. By embedding a trained QNN as a state-preparation oracle within AE, outputs are estimated through coherent interference rather than repeated sampling. We demonstrate that AE-based QNN inference achieves an $\mathcal{O}(1/N)$ error even with a single shot. We further analyze noise robustness and training feasibility, showing that AE can be a powerful primitive for overcoming the sampling overhead of QNNs. This highlights that when the model itself is quantum, quantum algorithms can enhance the computation efficiency.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a single-shot QNN framework that integrates quantum amplitude estimation (AE) into the readout stage. By embedding a trained QNN as a state-preparation oracle within AE, it claims to achieve an O(1/N) estimation error with a single shot, in contrast to conventional Monte Carlo O(1/sqrt(N)) scaling. The work further analyzes noise robustness and training feasibility, positioning AE as a primitive to reduce sampling overhead when the model itself is quantum.

Significance. If the embedding preserves coherence across the required oracle calls and the noise analysis is quantitative, the approach could deliver a quadratic reduction in circuit executions for QNN inference and training on near-term hardware. This leverages quantum algorithms to improve quantum models and addresses a practical bottleneck; the noise-robustness and training sections are strengths if they include concrete bounds.

major comments (2)
  1. [AE-based readout and noise analysis] The central O(1/N) claim with a single shot rests on treating the trained QNN as a coherent, repeatable state-preparation oracle inside AE. AE requires O(1/ε) controlled applications of the oracle and its inverse to reach additive error ε = O(1/N); the manuscript provides no explicit bound on total circuit depth or resource count for the controlled-QNN blocks (see the AE integration description and noise-robustness analysis). Without this, coherence loss would collapse performance to Monte-Carlo scaling.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract asserts noise robustness and training feasibility, yet the provided text contains no derivation of the O(1/N) scaling, no error analysis, and no circuit diagram for the embedding step. This prevents independent verification of whether the QNN circuit depth permits the Grover iterate without prohibitive overhead.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Notation and claims] Clarify the precise meaning of N and the single-shot count in the O(1/N) scaling (number of final measurements versus total oracle queries).
  2. [Figures] Add a circuit diagram illustrating the controlled-QNN oracle inside the AE Grover operator.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and positive review, which highlights both the promise of the approach and areas where the presentation can be strengthened. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate explicit resource bounds, derivations, and diagrams as suggested.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [AE-based readout and noise analysis] The central O(1/N) claim with a single shot rests on treating the trained QNN as a coherent, repeatable state-preparation oracle inside AE. AE requires O(1/ε) controlled applications of the oracle and its inverse to reach additive error ε = O(1/N); the manuscript provides no explicit bound on total circuit depth or resource count for the controlled-QNN blocks (see the AE integration description and noise-robustness analysis). Without this, coherence loss would collapse performance to Monte-Carlo scaling.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quantitative bounds on total circuit depth are essential for assessing near-term feasibility. The manuscript describes the QNN as the state-preparation oracle within the AE framework and assumes coherent repetition of the oracle and its inverse, but it does not provide explicit resource counts (e.g., total depth scaling as O(D/ε) where D is the QNN depth). We have added a new subsection on resource estimation that derives the total depth and gate count in terms of the QNN circuit depth D and target precision ε, along with a discussion of coherence requirements and how noise in the controlled-QNN blocks affects the overall O(1/N) scaling. This revision directly addresses the concern that coherence loss could revert to Monte Carlo behavior. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The abstract asserts noise robustness and training feasibility, yet the provided text contains no derivation of the O(1/N) scaling, no error analysis, and no circuit diagram for the embedding step. This prevents independent verification of whether the QNN circuit depth permits the Grover iterate without prohibitive overhead.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract is concise and that the manuscript would benefit from a more self-contained derivation of the O(1/N) scaling, explicit error analysis, and a circuit diagram for the QNN-AE embedding. While the main text outlines the integration, we have revised the manuscript to include: (i) a step-by-step derivation of the O(1/N) error in the AE readout section, (ii) quantitative error bounds tied to the noise-robustness analysis, and (iii) a new figure showing the circuit diagram with the controlled-QNN oracle and Grover iterate. The abstract has also been expanded slightly to reference these elements, enabling independent verification of resource overhead. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: O(1/N) scaling follows directly from standard amplitude estimation applied to a QNN oracle

full rationale

The paper's central claim embeds a trained QNN as a state-preparation oracle inside amplitude estimation and invokes the known O(1/N) additive error of AE (with the 'single-shot' qualifier referring to the final measurement after coherent iterations). No equation in the provided text defines the target scaling in terms of itself, fits a parameter to data and renames the fit as a prediction, or relies on a self-citation chain whose cited result is unverified. The argument is self-contained against the external benchmark of Brassard et al. amplitude estimation; any practical concerns about circuit depth or coherence are correctness issues, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The work relies on standard quantum mechanics and the known quadratic speedup of amplitude estimation; no new free parameters or invented physical entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Quantum amplitude estimation provides O(1/N) error scaling when used as a black-box primitive
    Invoked when the QNN is treated as the state-preparation oracle inside AE.
invented entities (1)
  • Single-shot QNN framework no independent evidence
    purpose: To replace Monte-Carlo readout with coherent amplitude estimation
    New conceptual combination introduced by the paper

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5453 in / 1104 out tokens · 26773 ms · 2026-05-10T02:35:02.143271+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P. W. Shor, Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer, SIAM Review 41 (2) (1999) 303–332. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1137/S0036144598347011, doi:10.1137/S0036144598347011. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1137/S0036144598347011

    work page doi:10.1137/s0036144598347011 1999

  2. [2]

    Godfrin, A

    C. Godfrin, A. Ferhat, R. Ballou, S. Klyatskaya, M. Ruben, W. Werns- dorfer, F. Balestro, Operating quantum states in single magnetic molecules: Implementation of grover’s quantum algorithm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 187702. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.187702. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.187702

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.187702 2017

  3. [3]

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, S. Lloyd, Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 150502. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.150502. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.150502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.150502 2009

  4. [4]

    M. A. Schalkers, M. Möller, Efficient and fail-safe quantum algorithm for the transport equation, Journal of Computational Physics 502 (2024) 112816. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2024.112816. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021999124000652

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2024.112816 2024

  5. [5]

    Biamonte, P

    J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, S. Lloyd, Quantum machine learning, Nature 549 (7671) (2017) 195–

    2017

  6. [6]

    Quantum machine learning.Nature, 549(7671):195–202, Sep 2017

    doi:10.1038/nature23474. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/nature23474 20

    work page doi:10.1038/nature23474

  7. [7]

    Cerezo, G

    M. Cerezo, G. Verdon, H.-Y. Huang, L. Cincio, P. J. Coles, Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning, Nature Computational Science 2 (9) (2022) 567–576. doi:10.1038/s43588-022-00311-3. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-022-00311-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s43588-022-00311-3 2022

  8. [8]

    Seo, Efficient quantum machine learning with inverse-probability al- gebraic corrections (2026)

    J. Seo, Efficient quantum machine learning with inverse-probability al- gebraic corrections (2026). arXiv:2601.16665. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2601.16665

    work page arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    Quantum Science and Technology4(4), 043001 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ab4eb5

    M. Benedetti, E. Lloyd, S. Sack, M. Fiorentini, Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models, Quantum Science and Technology 4 (4) (2019) 043001. doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab4eb5. URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ab4eb5

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab4eb5 2019

  10. [10]

    Quantum Machine Intelligence3(1), 9 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s42484-021-00038-w

    T. Hubregtsen, J. Pichlmeier, P. Stecher, K. Bertels, Evaluation of pa- rameterized quantum circuits: on the relation between classification ac- curacy, expressibility, and entangling capability, Quantum Machine In- telligence 3 (1) (2021) 9. doi:10.1007/s42484-021-00038-w. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s42484-021-00038-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s42484-021-00038-w 2021

  11. [11]

    J. Shi, W. Wang, X. Lou, S. Zhang, X. Li, Parameterized hamil- tonian learning with quantum circuit, IEEE Transactions on Pat- tern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 45 (5) (2023) 6086–6095. doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2022.3203157

    work page doi:10.1109/tpami.2022.3203157 2023

  12. [12]

    J. Wen, Z. Huang, D. Cai, L. Qian, Enhancing the expressivity of quantum neural networks with residual connections, Communications Physics 7 (1) (2024) 220. doi:10.1038/s42005-024-01719-1. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s42005-024-01719-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s42005-024-01719-1 2024

  13. [13]

    doi:10.1038/s41598-024-81436-5

    I.Panadero, Y.Ban, H.Espinós, R.Puebla, J.Casanova, E.Torrontegui, Regressions on quantum neural networks at maximal expressivity, Sci- entific Reports 14 (1) (2024) 31669. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-81436-5. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-81436-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-024-81436-5 2024

  14. [14]

    Seo, Quantum mixture-density network for multimodal prob- abilistic prediction, IEEE Access 13 (2025) 199317–199325

    J. Seo, Quantum mixture-density network for multimodal prob- abilistic prediction, IEEE Access 13 (2025) 199317–199325. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3635294. 21

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2025.3635294 2025

  15. [15]

    Seo, Multivariate unbounded quantum regression via log-ratio prob- abilities mitigating barren plateaus, IEEE Access 14 (2026) 4877–4885

    J. Seo, Multivariate unbounded quantum regression via log-ratio prob- abilities mitigating barren plateaus, IEEE Access 14 (2026) 4877–4885. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3647449

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2025.3647449 2026

  16. [16]

    Y. Xiao, L. M. Yang, C. Shu, S. C. Chew, B. C. Khoo, Y. D. Cui, Y. Y. Liu, Physics-informed quantum neural network for solving forward and inverseproblemsofpartialdifferentialequations, PhysicsofFluids36(9) (2024) 097145. doi:10.1063/5.0226232. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/5.0226232

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0226232 2024

  17. [17]

    Panichi, S

    G. Panichi, S. Corli, E. Prati, Quantum physics-informed neural net- works for multivariable partial differential equations, Phys. Rev. Appl. 25 (2026) 014001. doi:10.1103/6nh4-yh2y. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/6nh4-yh2y

    work page doi:10.1103/6nh4-yh2y 2026

  18. [18]

    Zhou, Z.-P

    M.-G. Zhou, Z.-P. Liu, H.-L. Yin, C.-L. Li, T.-K. Xu, Z.-B. Chen, Quan- tum neural network for quantum neural computing, Research 6 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    URLhttps://spj.science.org/doi/abs/10.34133/research.0134

    arXiv:https://spj.science.org/doi/pdf/10.34133/research.0134, doi:10.34133/research.0134. URLhttps://spj.science.org/doi/abs/10.34133/research.0134

    work page doi:10.34133/research.0134

  20. [20]

    Nature453, 1031– 1042 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07128

    J. Clarke, F. K. Wilhelm, Superconducting quantum bits, Nature 453 (7198) (2008) 1031–1042. doi:10.1038/nature07128. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/nature07128

    work page doi:10.1038/nature07128 2008

  21. [21]

    J. M. Pino, J. M. Dreiling, C. Figgatt, J. P. Gaebler, S. A. Moses, M. S. Allman, C. H. Baldwin, M. Foss-Feig, D. Hayes, K. Mayer, C. Ryan-Anderson, B. Neyenhuis, Demonstration of the trapped-ion quantum ccd computer architecture, Nature 592 (7853) (2021) 209–213. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03318-4. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03318-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03318-4 2021

  22. [22]

    R.; Khani, H.; Misztal, P.; Spray, R.; Ezekoye, O

    K. Alexander, A. Benyamini, D. Black, D. Bonneau, S. Burgos, B. Bur- ridge, H. Cable, G. Campbell, G. Catalano, A. Ceballos, C.-M. Chang, S. S. Choudhury, C. J. Chung, F. Danesh, T. Dauer, M. Davis, E. Dud- ley, P. Er-Xuan, J. Fargas, A. Farsi, C. Fenrich, J. Frazer, M. Fukami, Y. Ganesan, G. Gibson, M. Gimeno-Segovia, S. Goeldi, P. Goley, R. Haislmaier, ...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025- 2025

  23. [23]

    K.Mitarai, M.Negoro, M.Kitagawa, K.Fujii, Quantumcircuitlearning, Phys. Rev. A 98 (2018) 032309. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.98.032309. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.032309

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.98.032309 2018

  24. [24]

    Evaluating analytic gradients on quantum hardware,

    M. Schuld, V. Bergholm, C. Gogolin, J. Izaac, N. Killoran, Evaluating analyticgradientsonquantumhardware, Phys.Rev.A99(2019)032331. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.99.032331. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.99.032331

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.99.032331 2019

  25. [25]

    Grinko, J

    D. Grinko, J. Gacon, C. Zoufal, S. Woerner, Iterative quantum amplitude estimation, npj Quantum Information 7 (1) (2021) 52. doi:10.1038/s41534-021-00379-1. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-021-00379-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-021-00379-1 2021

  26. [26]

    Dorner, R

    U. Dorner, R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, B. J. Smith, J. S. Lun- deen, W. Wasilewski, K. Banaszek, I. A. Walmsley, Optimal quantum phase estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 040403. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.040403. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.040403

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.102.040403 2009

  27. [27]

    Etxezarreta Martinez, P

    J. Etxezarreta Martinez, P. Fuentes, P. Crespo, J. Garcia-Frias, Time- varying quantum channel models for superconducting qubits, npj Quan- tum Information 7 (1) (2021) 115. doi:10.1038/s41534-021-00448-5. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-021-00448-5 23

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-021-00448-5 2021

  28. [28]

    Kubica, A

    A. Kubica, A. Haim, Y. Vaknin, H. Levine, F. Brandão, A. Retzker, Erasure qubits: Overcoming theT 1 limit in superconducting circuits, Phys. Rev. X 13 (2023) 041022. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041022. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041022

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041022 2023

  29. [29]

    S. Wang, P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, M. Cerezo, L. Cincio, P. J. Coles, Can Error Mitigation Improve Trainability of Noisy Variational Quan- tum Algorithms?, Quantum 8 (2024) 1287. doi:10.22331/q-2024-03-14- 1287. URLhttps://doi.org/10.22331/q-2024-03-14-1287

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2024-03-14- 2024

  30. [30]

    Dalton, C

    K. Dalton, C. K. Long, Y. S. Yordanov, C. G. Smith, C. H. W. Barnes, N. Mertig, D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, Quantifying the effect of gate errors on variational quantum eigensolvers for quantum chemistry, npj Quantum Information 10 (1) (2024) 18. doi:10.1038/s41534-024-00808- x. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-024-00808-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-024-00808- 2024

  31. [31]

    Uvarov, D

    A. Uvarov, D. Rabinovich, O. Lakhmanskaya, K. Lakhmanskiy, J. Bi- amonte, S. Adhikary, Mitigating quantum gate errors for variational eigensolvers using hardware-inspired zero-noise extrapolation, Phys. Rev. A 110 (2024) 012404. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.110.012404. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.110.012404

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.110.012404 2024

  32. [32]

    A. W. R. Smith, K. E. Khosla, C. N. Self, M. S. Kim, Qubit readout error mitigation with bit-flip av- eraging, Science Advances 7 (47) (2021) eabi8009. arXiv:https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.abi8009, doi:10.1126/sciadv.abi8009. URLhttps://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/sciadv.abi8009

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.abi8009 2021

  33. [33]

    Peters, A

    E. Peters, A. C. Y. Li, G. N. Perdue, Perturbative readout-error mitiga- tion for near-term quantum computers, Phys. Rev. A 107 (2023) 062426. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.107.062426. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.107.062426

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.107.062426 2023

  34. [34]

    Cheng, X.-H

    B. Cheng, X.-H. Deng, X. Gu, Y. He, G. Hu, P. Huang, J. Li, B.-C. Lin, D. Lu, Y. Lu, C. Qiu, H. Wang, T. Xin, S. Yu, M.-H. Yung, J. Zeng, S. Zhang, Y. Zhong, X. Peng, F. Nori, D. Yu, Noisy intermediate- scale quantum computers, Frontiers of Physics 18 (2) (2023) 21308. 24 doi:10.1007/s11467-022-1249-z. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11467-022-1249-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s11467-022-1249-z 2023

  35. [35]

    M. A. Ijaz, M. Faryad, Noise analysis of grover and phase estimation algorithms implemented as quantum singular value transformations for a small number of noisy qubits, Scientific Reports 13 (1) (2023) 20144. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-47246-x. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-47246-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-023-47246-x 2023

  36. [36]

    Tanaka, Y

    T. Tanaka, Y. Suzuki, S. Uno, R. Raymond, T. Onodera, N. Ya- mamoto, Amplitude estimation via maximum likelihood on noisy quan- tum computer, Quantum Information Processing 20 (9) (2021) 293. doi:10.1007/s11128-021-03215-9. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-021-03215-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11128-021-03215-9 2021

  37. [37]

    Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Huggins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, T. E. O’Brien, Quantum error mitigation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95 (2023) 045005. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.95.045005. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.95.045005

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.95.045005 2023

  38. [38]

    Gonz´ alez-Garc´ ıa, R

    G. González-García, R. Trivedi, J. I. Cirac, Error propagation in nisq devices for solving classical optimization problems, PRX Quantum 3 (2022) 040326. doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.040326. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.040326 25

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.3.040326 2022