pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.28201 · v1 · pith:YOICKZDLnew · submitted 2026-06-26 · 🪐 quant-ph

Hybrid Quantum-Classical Neural Networks for Recognizing Quantum Phases

Colin Scarato , Johannes Kn\"orzer , Markus K. Hoffmann , Leon C. Sander , Luca Hofele , Shengpu Wang , Kilian Hanke , Ashay Sathe
show 6 more authors
Dominic Hagmann Alexander Flasby Michael J. Hartmann Petr Zapletal Andreas Wallraff Christoph Hellings
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 03:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords hybrid quantum-classical neural networksquantum phase recognitionsurface codetopological phasessuperconducting quantum hardwareparameterized quantum circuitssingle-qubit errors
0
0 comments X

The pith

A hybrid quantum-classical neural network trained on superconducting hardware classifies topological surface code states from product states even under single-qubit Pauli errors.

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

The paper introduces a hybrid neural network that pairs a parameterized quantum circuit with a classical feedforward network and trains both together on actual superconducting hardware. The goal is to detect nonlocal topological order in ground states of the surface code on lattices up to 4x4 sites. Once trained, the classifier separates these states from random product states even after any single-qubit error is applied, reaching more than 85 percent accuracy on individual shots and more than 99 percent when ten shots are averaged. This setup is presented as a route to phase recognition in regimes where purely classical methods face high sample complexity.

Core claim

The trained classifier distinguishes topological ground states of the surface code from randomly chosen product states, even when subjected to any single-qubit Pauli error, reaching accuracies above 85% in single-shot measurements and above 99% when averaging over ten measurements.

What carries the argument

Hardware-efficient parameterized quantum circuit combined with a classical feedforward neural network, jointly optimized inside the training loop on superconducting hardware.

If this is right

  • The same training procedure can be applied to other lattices and Hamiltonians where topological order must be distinguished from trivial product states.
  • Averaging a modest number of shots suffices to push accuracy above 99 percent, suggesting the method tolerates realistic measurement noise.
  • The approach targets regimes in which classical sample complexity grows unfavorably, offering a potential alternative for characterizing strongly correlated quantum matter.
  • The method scales at least to 4x4 surface-code lattices in a magnetic field while remaining executable on current superconducting processors.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar hybrid circuits could be tested on other topological models such as the toric code or fractional quantum Hall states to check whether the same error-robust classification holds.
  • If the quantum circuit component can be made shallower, the method might become practical for near-term devices with fewer qubits.
  • The learned quantum features could be inspected to extract interpretable diagnostics of topological order that classical networks miss.

Load-bearing premise

The joint training on real hardware embeds genuine nonlocal topological information rather than letting the classical network memorize device-specific noise patterns.

What would settle it

An experiment in which the same classical network is trained without the quantum circuit or with the quantum-circuit parameters held fixed at random values, then tested on the same error-corrupted data; if accuracy stays above 85 percent the hybrid quantum component is not required.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.28201 by Alexander Flasby, Andreas Wallraff, Ashay Sathe, Christoph Hellings, Colin Scarato, Dominic Hagmann, Johannes Kn\"orzer, Kilian Hanke, Leon C. Sander, Luca Hofele, Markus K. Hoffmann, Michael J. Hartmann, Petr Zapletal, Shengpu Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Architecture of the hybrid neural network. (a) The input state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Ground state characterization in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Training and benchmarking of the hybrid neural network. (a) Binary cross-entropy cost during training, for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. False-color micrograph of the superconducting quantum processor used in the experiment. Each transmon qubit consists [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Preparation circuit for the ground state of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Mapping of the (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Preparation circuit for the ground state of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Energy and fidelity of the states prepared as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Distributions of experimental results during the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Benchmarking results after using a training set that contains a single representative of the trivial states in the final [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Architecture of the hybrid neural network for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Identifying quantum phases of matter is key to understanding strongly correlated materials, but remains a challenging task for both conventional computers and current quantum processors. Here, we introduce and implement a hybrid quantum-classical neural network for quantum phase recognition by combining a hardware-efficient parameterized quantum circuit and a feedforward neural network. We jointly train both components with superconducting quantum hardware in the optimization loop, to experimentally demonstrate a classifier for the quantum phases of surface code lattices with up to 4x4 sites in a magnetic field. To learn nonlocal features of the topological phase, we train the hybrid neural network to distinguish topological ground states of the surface code from a featureless ensemble of product states. This allows the trained classifier to distinguish topological ground states from randomly chosen product states, even when subjected to any single-qubit Pauli error. The classifier reaches accuracies above 85% in single-shot measurements, and above 99% when averaging over ten measurements. We expect hybrid neural networks such as the one presented here to be a promising approach for characterizing quantum states in scenarios where classical methods exhibit an unfavorable scaling of sample complexity.

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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a hybrid quantum-classical neural network combining a hardware-efficient parameterized quantum circuit with a feedforward classical neural network. The components are jointly trained on superconducting quantum hardware to classify topological ground states of the surface code (lattices up to 4x4 sites in a magnetic field) against an ensemble of product states. The trained classifier is reported to distinguish these states even under any single-qubit Pauli error, achieving >85% accuracy in single-shot measurements and >99% when averaging over ten measurements.

Significance. If the experimental results are confirmed to arise from learned topological features rather than device-specific artifacts, the work provides a concrete demonstration of hybrid models for quantum phase recognition on near-term hardware. The joint training loop on superconducting processors and the claimed robustness to Pauli errors constitute experimental strengths that could guide future applications where classical sample complexity is prohibitive.

major comments (1)
  1. [Experimental demonstration paragraph (abstract and main text)] Experimental demonstration paragraph: The central claim requires that the hybrid model embeds nonlocal topological order (rather than hardware noise correlations) to achieve the reported accuracies. No ablations are described—such as an ideal-simulator baseline, label-shuffled controls, or noise-only inputs—to verify that performance collapses when hardware-specific readout errors or crosstalk are removed. This verification is load-bearing for the experimental demonstration.
minor comments (1)
  1. The manuscript should supply explicit details on the training protocol, data splitting, number of shots/runs, error mitigation methods, and statistical controls (including error bars) to permit independent verification of the quoted accuracies.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive feedback. We address the major comment point by point below and outline the changes we will make to strengthen the experimental claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Experimental demonstration paragraph (abstract and main text)] Experimental demonstration paragraph: The central claim requires that the hybrid model embeds nonlocal topological order (rather than hardware noise correlations) to achieve the reported accuracies. No ablations are described—such as an ideal-simulator baseline, label-shuffled controls, or noise-only inputs—to verify that performance collapses when hardware-specific readout errors or crosstalk are removed. This verification is load-bearing for the experimental demonstration.

    Authors: We agree that ablations are necessary to confirm the model learns topological features rather than exploiting hardware-specific correlations. In the revised manuscript we will add: (i) an ideal-simulator baseline showing classification performance in the absence of device noise; (ii) label-shuffled controls demonstrating that accuracy falls to chance level when labels are randomized; and (iii) noise-only input tests (random product states and pure error configurations) confirming that high accuracy requires the topological ground states. These additions will directly address the concern that performance may arise from readout errors or crosstalk. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Experimental demonstration with no derivation chain or self-referential reduction

full rationale

The manuscript reports an experimental implementation: a hybrid quantum-classical network is jointly trained on superconducting hardware to classify surface-code ground states versus product states, with reported single-shot accuracies above 85%. No equations, first-principles derivations, or predictions are claimed that could reduce by construction to fitted inputs, self-citations, or ansatzes. The central claim is an empirical hardware result, not a mathematical identity or uniqueness theorem. No load-bearing self-citation or renaming of known results appears in the provided text. This is a standard experimental report whose validity rests on controls and reproducibility rather than any circular derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the hybrid model implicitly assumes that the parameterized quantum circuit can be trained to capture nonlocal order without additional theoretical guarantees.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5767 in / 1189 out tokens · 37954 ms · 2026-06-29T03:34:36.589112+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

86 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    We provide the outputy of the hybrid neural network to a binary classifier with decision thresholdyt ∈ [0, 1]

    yields non-overlapping distributions for this test set. We provide the outputy of the hybrid neural network to a binary classifier with decision thresholdyt ∈ [0, 1]. The state is classified as topological fory ≥ yt and as trivial for y < y t. We estimate the error probabilities, which correspond to either classifying the trivial states as topological (fa...

    2022

  2. [2]

    Carleo, I

    G. Carleo, I. Cirac, K. Cranmer, L. Daudet, M. Schuld, N. Tishby, L. Vogt-Maranto, and L. Zdeborová, Machine learning and the physical sciences, Review of Modern Physics 91, 045002 (2019)

    2019

  3. [3]

    Wittek, Quantum machine learning: what quantum computing means to data mining (Elsevier, 2014)

    P. Wittek, Quantum machine learning: what quantum computing means to data mining (Elsevier, 2014)

    2014

  4. [4]

    Biamonte, P

    J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Quantum machine learning, Na- ture 549, 195 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    Cerezo, G

    M. Cerezo, G. Verdon, H.-Y. Huang, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning, Nature Computational Science2, 567 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    Xia and S

    R. Xia and S. Kais, Quantum machine learning for elec- tronic structure calculations, Nat. Comm.9, 4195 (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    W. Guan, G. Perdue, A. Pesah, M. Schuld, K. Terashi, S. Vallecorsa, J.-R. Vlimant, W. Guan, G. Perdue, A. Pe- sah, M. Schuld, K. Terashi, S. Vallecorsa, and J.-R. Vli- mant, Quantum machine learning in high energy physics, Machine Learning: Science and Technology2, 011003 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    I.Cong, S.Choi,andM.D.Lukin,Quantumconvolutional neural networks, Nature Physics15, 1273 (2019)

    2019

  9. [9]

    Bravo-Prieto, J

    C. Bravo-Prieto, J. Lumbreras-Zarapico, L. Tagliacozzo, and J. I. Latorre, Scaling of variational quantum circuit depth for condensed matter systems, Quantum4, 272 (2020)

    2020

  10. [10]

    D. Wu, R. Rossi, F. Vicentini, N. Astrakhantsev, F. Becca, X. Cao, J. Carrasquilla, F. Ferrari, A. Georges, M. Hibat- Allah, M. Imada, A. M. Läuchli, G. Mazzola, A. Mezza- capo, A. Millis, J. R. Moreno, T. Neupert, Y. Nomura, J. Nys, O. Parcollet, R. Pohle, I. Romero, M. Schmid, J. M. Silvester, S. Sorella, L. F. Tocchio, L. Wang, S. R. White, A. Wietek, ...

    2024

  11. [11]

    Acampora, A

    G. Acampora, A. Ambainis, N. Ares, L. Banchi, P. Bhard- waj, D. Binosi, G. A. D. Briggs, T. Calarco, V. Dun- jko, J. Eisert, O. Ezratty, P. Erker, F. Fedele, E. Gil- Fuster, M. Gärttner, M. Granath, M. Heyl, I. Kerenidis, M. Klusch, A. F. Kockum, R. Kueng, M. Krenn, J. Lässig, A. Macaluso, S. Maniscalco, F. Marquardt, K. Michielsen, G. Muñoz Gil, D. Müssi...

    arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Abbas, D

    A. Abbas, D. Sutter, C. Zoufal, A. Lucchi, A. Figalli, and S. Woerner, The power of quantum neural networks, Nature Computational Science1, 403 (2021)

    2021

  13. [13]

    Wiersema, C

    R. Wiersema, C. Zhou, Y. de Sereville, J. F. Carrasquilla, 16 Y. B. Kim, and H. Yuen, Exploring entanglement and optimization within the Hamiltonian variational ansatz, PRX Quantum1, 020319 (2020)

    2020

  14. [14]

    M. S. Rudolph, S. Lerch, S. Thanasilp, O. Kiss, O. Shaya, S. Vallecorsa, M. Grossi, and Z. Holmes, Trainability bar- riers and opportunities in quantum generative modeling, npj Quantum Information10, 116 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    Huang, M

    H.-Y. Huang, M. Broughton, J. Cotler, S. Chen, J. Li, M. Mohseni, H. Neven, R. Babbush, R. Kueng, J. Preskill, and J. R. McClean, Quantum advantage in learning from experiments, Science376, 1182 (2022)

    2022

  16. [16]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Information- theoretic bounds on quantum advantage in machine learn- ing, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 190505 (2021)

    2021

  17. [17]

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum codes on a lattice with boundary, arXiv:quant-ph/9811052 (1998)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  18. [18]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Annals of Physics303, 2 (2003)

    2003

  19. [19]

    Carrasquilla and R

    J. Carrasquilla and R. G. Melko, Machine learning phases of matter, Nature Physics13, 431 (2017)

    2017

  20. [20]

    van Nieuwenburg, Y.-H

    E. van Nieuwenburg, Y.-H. Liu, and S. Huber, Learning phase transitions by confusion, Nature Physics13, 435 (2017)

    2017

  21. [21]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, G. Torlai, V. V. Albert, and J. Preskill, Provably efficient machine learning for quan- tum many-body problems, Science377, eabk3333 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    I. Cong, N. Maskara, M. C. Tran, H. Pichler, G. Semegh- ini, S. F. Yelin, S. Choi, and M. D. Lukin, Enhancing detection of topological order by local error correction, Nat. Commun.15 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    Y.-J. Liu, K. Shtengel, and F. Pollmann, Simulating two- dimensional topological quantum phase transitions on a digital quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Research6, 043256 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    T. B. Wahl, W. J. Jankowski, A. Bouhon, G. Chaudhary, and R.-J. Slager, Exact projected entangled pair ground states with topological Euler invariant, Nat. Commun. 16, 284 (2025)

    2025

  25. [25]

    Y. Teng, R. Samajdar, K. Van Kirk, F. Wilde, S. Sachdev, J. Eisert, R. Sweke, and K. Najafi, Learning topological states from randomized measurements using variational tensor-network tomography, PRX Quantum6, 040303 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Sancho-Lorente, J

    T. Sancho-Lorente, J. Román-Roche, and D. Zueco, Quan- tum kernels to learn the phases of quantum matter, Phys. Rev. A105, 042432 (2022)

    2022

  27. [27]

    Tanji, H

    A. Tanji, H. Yano, and N. Yamamoto, Quantum phase classification via partial tomography-based quantum hy- pothesis testing, Scientific Reports16, 4555 (2026)

    2026

  28. [28]

    J. Chen, Y. Wu, Z. Yang, S. Xu, X. Ye, D. Li, K. Wang, C. Zhang, F. Jin, X. Zhu, Y. Gao, Z. Tan, Z. Cui, A. Zhang, N. Wang, Y. Zou, T. Li, F. Shen, J. Zhong, Z. Bao, Z. Zhu, Z. Song, J. Deng, H. Dong, P. Zhang, W. Zhang, H. Li, Q. Guo, Z. Wang, Y. Li, X. Wang, C. Song, and H. Wang, Quantum ensemble learning with a programmable superconducting processor, n...

    2025

  29. [29]

    Havlicek, A

    V. Havlicek, A. D. Corcoles, K. Temme, A. W. Harrow, A. Kandala, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Supervised learning with quantum-enhanced feature spaces, Nature 567, 209 (2019)

    2019

  30. [30]

    Henderson, S

    M. Henderson, S. Shakya, S. Pradhan, and T. Cook, Quan- volutional neural networks: powering image recognition with quantum circuits, Quantum Machine Intelligence2, 2 (2020)

    2020

  31. [31]

    J. Liu, K. H. Lim, K. L. Wood, W. Huang, C. Guo, and H.- L. Huang, Hybrid quantum-classical convolutional neural networks, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy 64, 290311 (2021)

    2021

  32. [32]

    Peters, J

    E. Peters, J. Caldeira, A. Ho, S. Leichenauer, M. Mohseni, H. Neven, P. Spentzouris, D. Strain, and G. N. Perdue, Machine learning of high dimensional data on a noisy quantum processor, npj Quantum Information 7, 161 (2021)

    2021

  33. [33]

    Senokosov, A

    A. Senokosov, A. Sedykh, A. Sagingalieva, B. Kyriacou, and A. Melnikov, Quantum machine learning for image classification, Machine Learning: Science and Technology 5, 015040 (2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    Romero, J

    J. Romero, J. P. Olson, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quantum autoencoders for efficient compression of quantum data, Quantum Science and Technology2, 045001 (2017)

    2017

  35. [35]

    J. L. Beckey, M. Cerezo, A. Sone, and P. J. Coles, Vari- ational quantum algorithm for estimating the quantum Fisher information, Phys. Rev. Research4, 013083 (2022)

    2022

  36. [36]

    M. R. Geller, Z. Holmes, P. J. Coles, and A. Sornborger, Experimental quantum learning of a spectral decomposi- tion, Phys. Rev. Research3, 033200 (2021)

    2021

  37. [37]

    Gong, H.-L

    M. Gong, H.-L. Huang, S. Wang, C. Guo, S. Li, Y. Wu, Q. Zhu, Y. Zhao, S. Guo, H. Qian, Y. Ye, C. Zha, F. Chen, C. Ying, J. Yu, D. Fan, D. Wu, H. Su, H. Deng, H. Rong, K. Zhang, S. Cao, J. Lin, Y. Xu, L. Sun, C. Guo, N. Li, F. Liang, A. Sakurai, K.Nemoto, W.J. Munro, Y.-H. Huo, C.-Y. Lu, C.-Z. Peng, X. Zhu, and J.-W. Pan, Quantum neuronal sensing of quantu...

    2023

  38. [38]

    M. C. Caro, H.-Y. Huang, M. Cerezo, K. Sharma, A. Sorn- borger, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Generalization in quan- tum machine learning from few training data, Nat. Com- mun. 13, 4919 (2022)

    2022

  39. [39]

    M. C. Caro, H.-Y. Huang, N. Ezzell, J. Gibbs, A. T. Sornborger, L. Cincio, P. J. Coles, and Z. Holmes, Out-of- distribution generalization for learning quantum dynam- ics, Nat. Commun.14, 3751 (2023)

    2023

  40. [40]

    Schuld and F

    M. Schuld and F. Petruccione,Supervised Learning with Quantum Computers (Springer-Verlag GmbH, 2018)

    2018

  41. [41]

    Farhi and H

    E. Farhi and H. Neven, Classification with quantum neu- ral networks on near term processors, arXiv:1802.06002 (2018)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  42. [42]

    K. Beer, D. Bondarenko, T. Farrelly, T. J. Osborne, R. Salzmann, D. Scheiermann, and R. Wolf, Training deep quantum neural networks, Nat. Commun.11, 808 (2020)

    2020

  43. [43]

    Broughton, G

    M. Broughton, G. Verdon, T. McCourt, A. J. Martinez, J. H. Yoo, S. V. Isakov, P. Massey, M. Y. Niu, R. Halavati, E. Peters, M. Leib, A. Skolik, M. Streif, D. Von Dollen, J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, D. Bacon, A. K. Ho, H. Neven, M. E. Mohseni, D. K. Kim, J. L. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Tensorflow quantum: A software framework for ...

    arXiv 2003

  44. [44]

    A. V. Uvarov, A. S. Kardashin, and J. D. Biamonte, Ma- chine learning phase transitions with a quantum processor, Phys. Rev. A102, 012415 (2020)

    2020

  45. [45]

    Herrmann, S

    J. Herrmann, S. M. Llima, A. Remm, P. Zapletal, N. A. McMahon, C. Scarato, F. Swiadek, C. K. Andersen, C. Hellings, S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, S. Lazăr, M. Ker- schbaum, D. C. Zanuz, G. J. Norris, M. J. Hartmann, 17 A. Wallraff, and C. Eichler, Realizing quantum convolu- tional neural networks on a superconducting quantum processor to recognize quantum phase...

    2022

  46. [46]

    Y.-J. Liu, A. Smith, M. Knap, and F. Pollmann, Model- independent learning of quantum phases of matter with quantum convolutional neural networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 220603 (2023)

    2023

  47. [47]

    L. C. Sander, N. A. McMahon, P. Zapletal, and M. J. Hartmann, Quantum convolutional neural network for phase recognition in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. Research 7, L042032 (2025)

    2025

  48. [48]

    Aktar, R

    S. Aktar, R. Bhardwaj, A. Bärtschi, T. Bhattacharya, and S. Eidenbenz, Quantum data learning of topological- to-ferromagnetic phase transitions in the 2+1D toric code loop gas model, arXiv:2511.16851 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    W. Ren, W. Li, S. Xu, K. Wang, W. Jiang, F. Jin, X. Zhu, J. Chen, Z. Song, P. Zhang, H. Dong, X. Zhang, J. Deng, Y. Gao, C. Zhang, Y. Wu, B. Zhang, Q. Guo, H. Li, Z. Wang, J. Biamonte, C. Song, D.-L. Deng, and H. Wang, Experimental quantum adversarial learning with programmable superconducting qubits, Nature Com- putational Science2, 711 (2022)

    2022

  50. [50]

    Trebst, P

    S. Trebst, P. Werner, M. Troyer, K. Shtengel, and C. Nayak, Breakdown of a topological phase: Quantum phase transition in a loop gas model with tension, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 070602 (2007)

    2007

  51. [51]

    Lacroix, C

    N. Lacroix, C. Hellings, C. K. Andersen, A. Di Paolo, A. Remm, S. Lazăr, S. Krinner, G. J. Norris, M. Gabu- reac, J. Heinsoo, A. Blais, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Improving the performance of deep quantum optimization algorithms with continuous gate sets, PRX Quantum1, 020304 (2020)

    2020

  52. [52]

    Cirstoiu, Z

    C. Cirstoiu, Z. Holmes, J. Iosue, L. Cincio, P. J. Coles, and A. Sornborger, Variational fast forwarding for quan- tum simulation beyond the coherence time, npj Quantum Information 6, 82 (2020)

    2020

  53. [53]

    Scarato, K

    C. Scarato, K. Hanke, A. Remm, S. Lazăr, N. Lacroix, D. Colao Zanuz, A. Flasby, A. Wallraff, and C. Hellings, Realizing a continuous set of two-qubit gates parameter- ized by an idle time, PRX Quantum6, 040317 (2025)

    2025

  54. [54]

    Bermejo, P

    P. Bermejo, P. Braccia, M. S. Rudolph, Z. Holmes, L. Cin- cio, and M. Cerezo, Quantum convolutional neural net- works are effectively classically simulable, PRX Quantum 7, 020304 (2026)

    2026

  55. [55]

    M. K. Hoffmann, L. C. Sander, C. Scarato, C. Hellings, J. Knörzer, M. J. Hartmann, and P. Zapletal, Hybrid quantum-classical neural network for sample-efficient recognition of topological phases, companion paper (2026)

    2026

  56. [56]

    Hamma, R

    A. Hamma, R. Ionicioiu, and P. Zanardi, Ground state entanglement and geometric entropy in the Kitaev model, Physics Letters A337, 22 (2005)

    2005

  57. [57]

    Bluvstein, H

    D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, A quantum processor based on coherent transport of en- tangled atom arrays, Nature604, 451 (2022)

    2022

  58. [58]

    Iqbal, N

    M. Iqbal, N. Tantivasadakarn, T. M. Gatterman, J. A. Gerber, K. Gilmore, D.Gresh, A. Hankin, N. Hewitt, C. V. Horst, M. Matheny, T. Mengle, B. Neyenhuis, A. Vish- wanath, M. Foss-Feig, R. Verresen, and H. Dreyer, Topo- logical order from measurements and feed-forward on a trapped ion quantum computer, Communications Physics 7, 205 (2024)

    2024

  59. [59]

    T. A. Cochran, B. Jobst, E. Rosenberg, Y. D. Lensky, G. Gyawali, N. Eassa, M. Will, A. Szasz, D. Abanin, R. Acharya, L. Aghababaie Beni, T. I. Andersen, M. Ans- mann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, J. Atalaya, R. Bab- bush, B. Ballard, J. C. Bardin, A. Bengtsson, A. Bilmes, A. Bourassa, J. Bovaird, M. Broughton, D. A. Browne, B. Buchea, B. B. Buckley, T. Bu...

    2025

  60. [60]

    K. J. Satzinger, Y.-J. Liu, A. Smith, C. Knapp, M. Newman, C. Jones, Z. Chen, C. Quintana, X. Mi, A. Dunsworth, C. Gidney, I. Aleiner, F. Arute, K. Arya, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, J. Basso, A. Bengtsson, A. Bilmes, M. Broughton, B. B. Buckley, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, N. Bushnell, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, S. Demura, A. R...

    2021

  61. [61]

    R.-Y. Sun, T. Shirakawa, and S. Yunoki, Parametrized quantum circuit for weight-adjustable quantum loop gas, Phys. Rev. B107, L041109 (2023)

    2023

  62. [62]

    Dusuel, M

    S. Dusuel, M. Kamfor, R. Orús, K. P. Schmidt, and J. Vidal, Robustness of a perturbed topological phase, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 107203 (2011)

    2011

  63. [63]

    Kitaev and J

    A. Kitaev and J. Preskill, Topological entanglement en- tropy, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 110404 (2006)

    2006

  64. [64]

    Brydges, A

    T. Brydges, A. Elben, P. Jurcevic, B. Vermersch, C. Maier, B. P. Lanyon, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Prob- ing Rényi entanglement entropy via randomized measure- ments, Science364, 260 (2019)

    2019

  65. [65]

    Y. Zhou, Z. Zhang, Z. Yin, S. Huai, X. Gu, X. Xu, J. Allcock, F. Liu, G. Xi, Q. Yu, H. Zhang, M. Zhang, H. Li, X. Song, Z. Wang, D. Zheng, S. An, Y. Zheng, and S. Zhang, Rapid and unconditional parametric reset pro- tocol for tunable superconducting qubits, Nat. Commun. 12, 5924 (2021)

    2021

  66. [66]

    Dawid, J

    A. Dawid, J. Arnold, B. Requena, A. Gresch, M. Płodzień, K. Donatella, K. A. Nicoli, P. Stornati, R. Koch, M. Büt- tner, R. Okuła, G. Muñoz-Gil, R. A. Vargas-Hernández, A. Cervera-Lierta, J. Carrasquilla, V. Dunjko, M. Gabrié, P. Huembeli, E. van Nieuwenburg, F. Vicentini, L. Wang, S. J. Wetzel, G. Carleo, E. Greplová, R. Krems, F. Mar- quardt, M. Tomza, ...

    2025

  67. [67]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, Adam: A method for stochastic optimization, arXiv:1412.6980 (2014)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  68. [68]

    Salimans, J

    T. Salimans, J. Ho, X. Chen, S. Sidor, and I. Sutskever, Evolution strategies as a scalable alternative to reinforce- ment learning, arXiv:1703.03864 (2017)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  69. [69]

    A. Mari, T. R. Bromley, J. Izaac, M. Schuld, and N. Killo- ran, Transfer learning in hybrid classical-quantum neural networks, Quantum4, 340 (2020)

    2020

  70. [70]

    D. W. Hosmer, S. Lemeshow, and R. X. Sturdivant,Ap- plied logistic regression (John Wiley & Sons, 2000)

    2000

  71. [71]

    Haller, W.-T

    L. Haller, W.-T. Xu, Y.-J. Liu, and F. Pollmann, Quan- tum phase transition between symmetry enriched topolog- ical phases in tensor-network states, Phys. Rev. Research 5, 043078 (2023)

    2023

  72. [72]

    Holmes, K

    Z. Holmes, K. Sharma, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles, Con- necting ansatz expressibility to gradient magnitudes and barren plateaus, PRX Quantum3, 010313 (2022)

    2022

  73. [73]

    Larocca, P

    M. Larocca, P. Czarnik, K. Sharma, G. Muraleedharan, P. J. Coles, and M. Cerezo, Diagnosing barren plateaus with tools from quantum optimal control, Quantum6, 824 (2022)

    2022

  74. [74]

    Ragone, B

    M. Ragone, B. N. Bakalov, F. Sauvage, A. F. Kemper, C. Ortiz Marrero, M. Larocca, and M. Cerezo, A Lie algebraic theory of barren plateaus for deep parameterized quantum circuits, Nat. Commun.15, 7172 (2024)

    2024

  75. [75]

    Krinner, N

    S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, A. Remm, A. D. Paolo, E. Genois, C. Leroux, C. Hellings, S. Lazăr, F. Swiadek, J. Her- rmann, G. J. Norris, C. K. Andersen, M. Müller, A. Blais, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Realizing repeated quantum error correction in a distance-three surface code, Nature 605, 669 (2022)

    2022

  76. [76]

    Lacroix, L

    N. Lacroix, L. Hofele, A. Remm, O. Benhayoune- Khadraoui, A. McDonald, R. Shillito, S. Lazăr, C. Hellings, F. Swiadek, D. Colao-Zanuz, A. Flasby, M. B. Panah, M. Kerschbaum, G. J. Norris, A. Blais, A. Wall- raff, and S. Krinner, Fast flux-activated leakage reduction for superconducting quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 120601 (2025)

    2025

  77. [77]

    Bilmes, A

    A. Bilmes, A. K. Händel, S. Volosheniuk, A. V. Ustinov, and J. Lisenfeld, In-situ bandaged Josephson junctions for superconducting quantum processors, Superconductor Science and Technology34, 125011 (2021)

    2021

  78. [78]

    Hellings, N

    C. Hellings, N. Lacroix, A. Remm, R. Boell, J. Herrmann, S. Lazăr, S. Krinner, F. Swiadek, C. K. Andersen, C. Eich- ler, and A. Wallraff, Calibrating magnetic flux control in superconducting circuits by compensating distortions on timescales from nanoseconds up to tens of microseconds, Phys. Rev. Research7, 043142 (2025)

    2025

  79. [79]

    Motzoi, J

    F. Motzoi, J. M. Gambetta, P. Rebentrost, and F. K. Wilhelm,Simplepulsesforeliminationofleakageinweakly nonlinear qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 110501 (2009)

    2009

  80. [80]

    Lazăr,Improving Single-Qubit Gates in Superconduct- ing Quantum Devices , Ph.D

    S. Lazăr,Improving Single-Qubit Gates in Superconduct- ing Quantum Devices , Ph.D. thesis, ETH Zurich (2023)

    2023

Showing first 80 references.