pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.03517 · v1 · pith:WYWNLKEOnew · submitted 2026-06-02 · 🪐 quant-ph · cs.AI· cs.LG

Scalable On-Hardware Training of Quantum Neural Networks and Application to Clinical Data Imputation

Natansh Mathur , Panagiotis Kl. Barkoutsos , Masako Yamada , Martin Roetteler , Iordanis Kerenidis This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 09:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cs.AIcs.LG
keywords quantum neural networkson-hardware trainingparameter shift ruleclinical data imputationbutterfly circuitsMIMIC-IIIgradient estimation
0
0 comments X

The pith

A training framework reduces quantum neural network gradient costs from quadratic to logarithmic scaling in the number of qubits.

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

The paper seeks to establish that quantum neural networks can be trained directly on quantum hardware at scales up to dozens of qubits by cutting the number of circuit evaluations needed for each optimization step from quadratic to logarithmic. This would matter because current gradient methods make hardware training too expensive for anything but the smallest systems, blocking practical use of QNNs. The approach uses a specially structured circuit, trains one layer at a time, and computes all gradients in parallel with few executions. Validation on imputing missing values in clinical health records shows the resulting models perform as well as or better than classical neural networks on survival prediction tasks.

Core claim

The authors present a framework that combines a subspace-preserving Butterfly circuit architecture with O(n log n) parameters and logarithmic depth, a layer-wise training strategy, and a parallelised parameter-shift rule exploiting commuting structure. This combination reduces the number of distinct circuit evaluations per optimisation step from O(n²) to O(log n), enabling on-hardware training of hybrid quantum-classical models at 16 qubits on trapped-ion hardware and 32 qubits via simulation, with successful application to clinical data imputation from the MIMIC-III dataset.

What carries the argument

The subspace-preserving Butterfly circuit architecture with layer-wise training and parallelised parameter-shift rule, which together allow constant-number gradient extraction per layer.

If this is right

  • Gradient-based optimization of QNNs becomes practical on near-term hardware at larger scales.
  • Hybrid models trained this way match or exceed classical neural baselines in downstream tasks like patient survival prediction.
  • Training exhibits reduced variance across multiple runs compared to standard methods.
  • 32-qubit inference can be executed on hardware without degradation from simulation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The logarithmic scaling might enable training even larger QNNs as hardware improves.
  • This method could be adapted for other quantum machine learning applications beyond data imputation.
  • Combining this with classical pre- and post-processing might further improve efficiency in hybrid systems.

Load-bearing premise

The Butterfly circuit preserves enough commuting structure for parallel gradient computation while retaining sufficient expressivity for accurate clinical data imputation.

What would settle it

Measure the actual number of circuit executions required per optimization step on hardware and verify whether it remains independent of n or grows only logarithmically rather than quadratically.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.03517 by Iordanis Kerenidis, Martin Roetteler, Masako Yamada, Natansh Mathur, Panagiotis Kl. Barkoutsos.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The quantum component of the hybrid imputation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Layer-wise training workflow for the Butterfly quan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Overview of the hybrid classical-quantum imputation pipeline. Given a partially observed patient vector, observed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Downstream survival prediction AUC for a classi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of the 16-Qubit hybrid neural net [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Downstream survival prediction AUC for two impu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Training quantum neural networks (QNNs) on quantum hardware is currently bottlenecked by the cost of gradient estimation: standard parameter-shift methods require a number of circuit evaluations that grows quadratically with the number of trainable parameters, making hardware-based optimisation impractical beyond small system sizes. In this work, we introduce a training framework that reduces this cost to logarithmic in the number of qubits, making gradient-based QNN optimisation feasible on near-term hardware at increasing scales. Our framework combines three co-designed ingredients: (i) a structured, subspace-preserving Butterfly circuit architecture with $O(n \log n)$ parameters and logarithmic depth; (ii) a layer-wise training strategy that confines on-hardware optimisation to one small, well-structured layer at a time; and (iii) a parallelised parameter-shift rule that exploits the commuting structure within each Butterfly layer to extract all gradients in a constant number of circuit executions. Together these reduce the number of distinct circuit evaluations per optimisation step from $O(n^2)$ to $O(\log n)$. We validate the framework on clinical data imputation using the MIMIC-III electronic health record dataset, a demanding benchmark sensitive to optimisation instability and model variance. Hybrid classical-quantum models are trained directly on IonQ Forte Enterprise trapped-ion hardware at 16 qubits without performance degradation relative to ideal or noisy simulation and via tensor-network simulation at 32 qubits, with 32-qubit inference executed on hardware. The resulting models match or exceed strong classical neural baselines in downstream patient survival prediction while exhibiting reduced variance across runs, demonstrating that the proposed framework enables practical, scalable QNN training under realistic hardware constraints.

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 paper claims a training framework for quantum neural networks that reduces per-step gradient estimation cost from O(n²) to O(log n) via three co-designed elements: a subspace-preserving Butterfly circuit ansatz with O(n log n) parameters and log depth, layer-wise training that optimizes one layer at a time, and a parallelised parameter-shift rule that uses intra-layer commuting structure to obtain all layer gradients in a constant number of circuit executions. The framework is demonstrated on clinical data imputation from the MIMIC-III dataset, with hybrid models trained directly on IonQ Forte trapped-ion hardware at 16 qubits (and tensor-network simulation at 32 qubits), matching or exceeding classical neural-network baselines on downstream survival prediction while showing lower run-to-run variance and no degradation relative to ideal/noisy simulation.

Significance. If the O(log n) scaling and expressivity claims hold, the work would enable practical gradient-based QNN training on near-term hardware at scales previously limited by quadratic measurement cost. Strengths include direct hardware execution at 16 qubits, use of a demanding real-world clinical benchmark (MIMIC-III), and reported reduction in variance; these provide independent empirical grounding beyond synthetic tasks. The co-design of architecture, training schedule, and gradient estimator is a constructive approach to the measurement bottleneck.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section describing the parallelised parameter-shift rule and Butterfly layer construction] The O(log n) scaling rests on the parallelised parameter-shift rule extracting all gradients for each Butterfly layer in a fixed number of executions. The manuscript asserts that the subspace-preserving construction supplies the required commuting structure (or simultaneous-shift identity) among the O(n) generators inside a layer, but supplies no explicit commutation relations, algebraic identity, or verification that this property holds for the specific generators used. This is load-bearing for the central complexity claim; without it the per-step cost reverts to linear in the number of layer parameters.
  2. [Hardware validation and MIMIC-III results section] Table or figure reporting 16-qubit hardware results: the claim of 'no performance degradation relative to ideal or noisy simulation' is central to the practical-utility argument, yet the description does not clarify whether data-selection criteria or the particular imputation benchmark could bias the comparison; additional ablation on these choices would be needed to confirm the result is not an artifact of benchmark construction.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and scaling claim paragraph] Notation for the number of circuit evaluations per optimisation step should be stated explicitly (e.g., the precise constant hidden by O(log n)) rather than left implicit.
  2. [Results figures] Figure captions comparing hardware, noisy simulation, and classical baselines should include error bars or run counts so that the reported variance reduction can be assessed quantitatively.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and positive evaluation of the work's significance. We address each major comment below and indicate the corresponding revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Section describing the parallelised parameter-shift rule and Butterfly layer construction] The O(log n) scaling rests on the parallelised parameter-shift rule extracting all gradients for each Butterfly layer in a fixed number of executions. The manuscript asserts that the subspace-preserving construction supplies the required commuting structure (or simultaneous-shift identity) among the O(n) generators inside a layer, but supplies no explicit commutation relations, algebraic identity, or verification that this property holds for the specific generators used. This is load-bearing for the central complexity claim; without it the per-step cost reverts to linear in the number of layer parameters.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit derivation strengthens the central claim. The Butterfly ansatz is defined via a recursive subspace-preserving decomposition in which the generators within each layer act on orthogonal subspaces and therefore commute. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection that states the generators explicitly, proves [G_i, G_j]=0 for all pairs inside a layer from the algebraic form of the unitary blocks, and verifies the simultaneous-shift identity used by the parallelised rule. This addition directly supports the O(1) circuit count per layer. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Hardware validation and MIMIC-III results section] Table or figure reporting 16-qubit hardware results: the claim of 'no performance degradation relative to ideal or noisy simulation' is central to the practical-utility argument, yet the description does not clarify whether data-selection criteria or the particular imputation benchmark could bias the comparison; additional ablation on these choices would be needed to confirm the result is not an artifact of benchmark construction.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for additional controls. The MIMIC-III preprocessing follows the standard protocol used in prior clinical-imputation studies (fixed patient cohort, missingness pattern, and train/test split). In the revised manuscript we will add an ablation subsection that repeats the 16-qubit hardware runs under two alternative cohort-selection rules and two different missingness rates, reporting the resulting accuracy and variance metrics to demonstrate that the 'no degradation' observation is robust to these choices. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; scaling derived from explicitly introduced co-designed components with external validation

full rationale

The paper introduces a Butterfly architecture, layer-wise training, and parallel parameter-shift rule as new elements whose combination yields the O(log n) circuit-evaluation scaling. This is not self-definitional or fitted-input-called-prediction because the commuting structure is a stated property of the proposed subspace-preserving construction, the overall claim is supported by training and inference on the external MIMIC-III dataset plus real IonQ hardware (16 qubits) and tensor-network simulation (32 qubits), and no load-bearing self-citations or renamings of known results appear in the provided text. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract alone supplies no concrete free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the central claim rests on the unexamined assumption that the Butterfly circuit's commuting structure and subspace preservation hold under hardware noise.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5854 in / 1270 out tokens · 31552 ms · 2026-06-28T09:27:52.974570+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Scalable Message-Passing Quantum Graph Neural Networks in the Weisfeiler-Leman Hierarchy

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    The work constructs a permutation-equivariant quantum GNN that implements message passing at selectable Weisfeiler-Leman levels, supports pre-training on small graphs, and demonstrates readout scalability with simulat...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    State Initialisation: Non-Gaussian Inputs The first stage of the QNN prepares the quantum reg- ister in a non-Gaussian initial state. This choice is es- sential because the parametrised layers of our model are constructed from fermionic linear optics (FLO) circuits, which are efficiently classically simulable when initialised in Gaussian states [21, 22]. ...

  2. [2]

    Specifically, we employ the RY loader introduced in [15], which belongs to the broader class of hardware- efficient angle encodings studied in [13, 14, 23]

    Data Loading and Feature Encoding Classical data are embedded into the quantum circuit using an angle-encoding scheme based on single-qubit ro- tations. Specifically, we employ the RY loader introduced in [15], which belongs to the broader class of hardware- efficient angle encodings studied in [13, 14, 23]. The RY encoding layer rotates individual qubit ...

  3. [3]

    Parametrised Circuit: Butterfly Architecture The trainable core of the QNN is a subspace-preserving parametrised quantum circuit based on the Butterfly ar- chitecture proposed in [16], building on the excitation- preserving QNN framework of [11]. The circuit is com- posed of layers of two-qubit Reconfigurable Beam Splitter (RBS) gates [24], defined as RBS...

  4. [4]

    Schuld, V

    M. Schuld, V. Bergholm, C. Gogolin, J. Izaac, and N. Kil- loran, Evaluating analytic gradients on quantum hard- ware, Physical Review A99, 032331 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    D. B. Rubin, Multiple imputation, inFlexible impu- tation of missing data, second edition(Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2018) pp. 29–62

    2018

  6. [6]

    J. A. Sterne, I. R. White, J. B. Carlin, M. Spratt, P. Royston, M. G. Kenward, A. M. Wood, and J. R. Carpenter, Multiple imputation for missing data in epi- demiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls, Bmj338(2009)

    2009

  7. [7]

    J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Bab- bush, and H. Neven, Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes, Nature Communications9, 4812 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Sone, T. Volkoff, L. Cincio, and P. Coles, Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits, Nature Communications 12, 1791 (2021)

    2021

  9. [9]

    Monbroussou, E

    L. Monbroussou, E. Z. Mamon, J. Landman, A. B. Grilo, R. Kukla, and E. Kashefi, Trainability and expressivity of hamming-weight preserving quantum circuits for ma- chine learning, Quantum9, 1745 (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    Mitarai, M

    K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii, Quantum circuit learning, Physical Review A98, 032309 (2018)

    2018

  11. [11]

    Abbas, R

    A. Abbas, R. King, H.-Y. Huang, W. J. Huggins, R. Movassagh, D. Gilboa, and J. McClean, On quan- tum backpropagation, information reuse, and cheating measurement collapse, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36, 44792 (2023)

    2023

  12. [12]

    H. Wang, Z. Li, J. Gu, Y. Ding, D. Z. Pan, and S. Han, QOC: Quantum on-chip training with param- eter shift and gradient pruning, inProceedings of the 59th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) (2022) pp. 655–660, arXiv:2202.13239

    arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Kverne, M

    C. Kverne, M. Akewar, Y. Huo, T. Patel, and J. Bhimani, Wsbd: Freezing-based optimizer for quantum neural net- works, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.11383 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  14. [14]

    Landman, N

    J. Landman, N. Mathur, Y. Y. Li, M. Strahm, S. Kazdaghli, A. Prakash, and I. Kerenidis, Quantum methods for neural networks and application to medical image classification, Quantum6, 881 (2022)

    2022

  15. [15]

    Kerenidis and A

    I. Kerenidis and A. Prakash, Quantum machine learning with subspace states, arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.00054 (2022)

    arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Havl´ ıˇ cek, A

    V. Havl´ ıˇ cek, A. D. C´ orcoles, K. Temme, A. W. Harrow, A. Kandala, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Super- vised learning with quantum-enhanced feature spaces, Nature567, 209 (2019)

    2019

  17. [17]

    Schuld and F

    M. Schuld and F. Petruccione, Supervised learning with quantum computers, Quantum science and technology17 (2018)

    2018

  18. [18]

    Thakkar, S

    S. Thakkar, S. Kazdaghli, N. Mathur, I. Kerenidis, A. J. Ferreira-Martins, and S. Brito, Improved financial fore- casting via quantum machine learning, Quantum Ma- chine Intelligence6, 27 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    E. A. Cherrat, I. Kerenidis, N. Mathur, J. Landman, M. Strahm, and Y. Y. Li, Quantum vision transformers, Quantum8, 1265 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    G. E. Hinton, S. Osindero, and Y.-W. Teh, A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets, Neural computation18, 1527 (2006)

    2006

  21. [21]

    Tseng, Convergence of a block coordinate descent method for nondifferentiable minimization, Journal of op- timization theory and applications109, 475 (2001)

    P. Tseng, Convergence of a block coordinate descent method for nondifferentiable minimization, Journal of op- timization theory and applications109, 475 (2001)

    2001

  22. [22]

    Bowles, D

    J. Bowles, D. Wierichs, and C.-Y. Park, Backpropagation scaling in parameterised quantum circuits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14962 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Coyle, S

    B. Coyle, S. Raj, N. Mathur, E. A. Cherrat, N. Jain, S. Kazdaghli, and I. Kerenidis, Training-efficient density quantum machine learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20237 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Oszmaniec, N

    M. Oszmaniec, N. Dangniam, M. E. Morales, and Z. Zim- bor´ as, Fermion sampling: a robust quantum computa- tional advantage scheme using fermionic linear optics and magic input states, PRX Quantum3, 020328 (2022)

    2022

  25. [25]

    Knill, Fermionic linear optics and matchgates, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0108033 (2001)

    E. Knill, Fermionic linear optics and matchgates, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0108033 (2001)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  26. [26]

    LaRose and B

    R. LaRose and B. Coyle, Robust data encodings for quan- tum classifiers, arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.01695 (2020)

    arXiv 2003

  27. [27]

    Johri, S

    S. Johri, S. Debnath, A. Mocherla, A. Singk, A. Prakash, J. Kim, and I. Kerenidis, Nearest centroid classification on a trapped ion quantum computer, npj Quantum In- formation7, 122 (2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    G.-L. R. Anselmetti, D. Wierichs, C. Gogolin, and R. M. Parrish, Local, expressive, quantum-number-preserving vqe ans¨ atze for fermionic systems, New Journal of Physics23, 113010 (2021)

    2021

  29. [29]

    A. E. Johnson, T. J. Pollard, L. Shen, L.-w. H. Lehman, M. Feng, M. Ghassemi, B. Moody, P. Szolovits, L. An- thony Celi, and R. G. Mark, Mimic-iii, a freely accessible critical care database, Scientific data3, 1 (2016)

    2016

  30. [30]

    Kazdaghli, I

    S. Kazdaghli, I. Kerenidis, J. Kieckbusch, and P. Teare, Improved clinical data imputation via classical and quan- tum determinantal point processes, Elife12, RP89947 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    Shadbahr, M

    T. Shadbahr, M. Roberts, J. Stanczuk, J. Gilbey, P. Teare, S. Dittmer, M. Thorpe, R. V. Torn´ e, E. Sala, P. Li´ o,et al., The impact of imputation quality on ma- chine learning classifiers for datasets with missing values, Communications medicine3, 139 (2023)

    2023

  32. [32]

    Van Buuren and K

    S. Van Buuren and K. Groothuis-Oudshoorn, mice: Mul- tivariate imputation by chained equations in r, Journal of statistical software45, 1 (2011)

    2011

  33. [33]

    D. J. Stekhoven and P. B¨ uhlmann, Missforest—non- parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data, Bioinformatics28, 112 (2012)

    2012