Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Benchmarking Quantum Convolutional Neural Networks for Signal Classification in Simulated Gamma-Ray Burst Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A quantum CNN trained on 20 simulated light curves reaches 98.33% test accuracy on gamma-ray-burst-like signals while a minimal classical CNN stays near chance.

desk verdict A useful but fragile benchmark of QCNNs on simulated GRB light curves; the few-shot quantum-advantage claim needs repeated splits and a fairer classical baseline before it can be believed. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.17041 v1 pith:W2XBR6C2 submitted 2025-01-28 astro-ph.HE cs.AIquant-ph

Farida Farsian , Nicolò Parmiggiani , Alessandro Rizzo , Gabriele Panebianco , Andrea Bulgarelli , Francesco Schillirò , Carlo Burigana , Vincenzo Cardone
show 7 more authors
Luca Cappelli Massimo Meneghetti Giuseppe Murante Giuseppe Sarracino Roberto Scaramella Vincenzo Testa Tiziana Trombetti
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEcs.AIquant-ph
keywords quantumconvolutionalneuralnetworksgamma-rayburststime-seriesclassificationmachinelearningsamplecomplexitydatare-uploadinglightcurvesadvantage
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 sets out to show that quantum convolutional neural networks (QCNNs) can detect gamma-ray-burst-like signals in simulated light curves as accurately as classical convolutional networks while using fewer trainable parameters. Its central empirical claim is that in a low-data regime, a QCNN trained on only 20 simulated light curves reaches 95% training and 98.33% test accuracy, whereas a deliberately minimal classical CNN with 56 parameters sits near chance at 55% and 52.22%. The authors interpret this gap as evidence of a quantum advantage in sample complexity, which would matter because labeled astrophysical transients are scarce. The study also benchmarks qubit count and encoding methods, finding that more qubits and data re-uploading improve accuracy, and that the QCNN transfers to a real observational dataset with roughly 90% test accuracy.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a parameterized quantum circuit arranged as a convolutional neural network: light-curve values are encoded as rotation angles on individual qubits, CNOT gates entangle neighboring qubits in successive layers, and pooling reduces the number of qubits so the model ends with only $O(\log N)$ variational parameters for an $N$-qubit input. Training alternates between evaluating the circuit on a quantum simulator and updating the rotation angles with the COBYLA optimizer. The encoding choice matters: data re-uploading re-embeds the same input at several depths of the circuit, giving the network enough expressivity to reach high accuracy, whereas amplitude encoding, which packs the full input into one state, performs much worse in this benchmark. The classical comparison model is a deliberately minimal one-layer 1D CNN with 2 filters, kernel size 3, and 56 parameters, chosen so that the comparison targets the QCNN's intrinsic behavior rather than classical model size.

What would settle it

Repeat the 20-training-sample experiment across many random splits with a classical CNN that uses standard regularization and hyperparameter tuning; if any classical model consistently reaches high test accuracy, the claimed quantum advantage in sample complexity for this task is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a QCNN with data re-uploading solves the binary classification of gamma-ray-burst-like versus background-only light curves with accuracy comparable to a classical CNN while using fewer parameters: at the 12-qubit configuration it reaches 99.31% training / 97.5% test accuracy with 24 parameters, against 99.7% / 97.35% for the 56-parameter classical CNN. The sharper claim is few-shot: with 20 training light curves and 180 test curves, the QCNN reaches 95% training / 98.33% test accuracy while the classical CNN reaches only 55% / 52.22%, which the paper calls a form of quantum advantage in sample complexity. It also finds that data re-uploading is much more effective than amplitude encoding (88.12% versus 66.67% test accuracy at 7 qubits), and that on a real, class-imbalanced observational dataset the QCNN reaches about 91% training / 90% test accuracy.

Load-bearing premise

The few-shot quantum-advantage claim rests on the assumption that a single 20-example training split and a deliberately minimal classical CNN are a fair and representative comparison; if a standardly tuned classical model also learns the task from 20 examples, the claimed advantage collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the few-shot result holds, QCNNs offer a route to classify rare transient signals with only tens of labeled examples, a regime common in gamma-ray astronomy.
  • Data re-uploading should be the default encoding for QCNN time-series classification on this kind of data, since it clearly outperforms amplitude encoding.
  • Qubit count is a direct accuracy-versus-training-time dial: increasing from 6 to 12 qubits lifts test accuracy from about 87.7% to 97.5% but costs roughly 33 times more training time.
  • At comparable accuracy, the QCNN uses fewer than half the trainable parameters of the classical CNN, suggesting parameter-efficient learned representations.
  • The QCNN transfers to a real, unbalanced satellite dataset at about 90% test accuracy, so the approach is not confined to synthetic light curves.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The few-shot comparison uses one train/test split and one deliberately small classical network; repeated-seed runs with standard classical baselines would clarify whether the gap is intrinsic to the quantum model or specific to that baseline.
  • The simulated task is intentionally simple, a single Gaussian pulse on Poisson noise; a more realistic multi-pulse or log-normal variability benchmark would test whether the sample-complexity advantage persists at higher task difficulty.
  • Should the few-shot advantage replicate, the same hybrid architecture could be pointed at other label-starved astrophysical searches, such as rare supernovae, fast radio bursts, or electromagnetic counterparts, though the paper does not test those cases.
  • On real quantum hardware the deeper data-re-uploading circuits will accumulate noise, so the noise-free simulator results here set an upper bound; hardware-aware error mitigation would be needed to translate the accuracy numbers into practice.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper benchmarks hybrid quantum-classical QCNNs for binary classification of simulated CTAO-like gamma-ray burst (GRB) light curves against a deliberately minimal classical CNN. It reports that QCNNs achieve accuracy comparable to classical CNNs on the full training set (97.5% vs 97.35% test accuracy) while using fewer parameters, evaluates the effect of qubit count and data encoding methods, and reports a strong performance on a small training set of 20 light curves (QCNN 95% train / 98.33% test vs classical CNN 55% train / 52.22% test), which the authors interpret as 'a form of quantum advantage' in sample complexity. The paper also tests the QCNN on real AGILE data, achieving 91% train / 90% test accuracy.

Significance. If the sample-complexity advantage claimed in Section V-D were reliably established, this would be a meaningful contribution to quantum machine learning for astrophysics, with practical relevance for rare transient detection where labeled data are scarce. The paper's systematic exploration of qubit number, encoding methods, and validation on real AGILE data is a useful step, and the authors are appropriately cautious about hardware noise in the conclusion. However, the central few-shot quantum-advantage claim currently rests on a single unseeded train/test split and a classical baseline whose fairness is not validated; without additional statistical controls and a more thorough classical comparison, the claimed advantage is unsupported. The manuscript is suitable for major revision rather than rejection, because the deficiencies are addressable with additional experiments and reporting.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V-D, Table III] The few-shot quantum-advantage claim is based on a single train/test split (20 training, 180 test), a single random initialization, and no error bars or repeated-seed statistics. With 180 test examples, the reported 98.33% test accuracy corresponds to exactly 3 misclassifications, so the result is highly sensitive to which 20 examples are used for training and which 180 for testing. I ask the authors to report results over multiple random splits and initializations (e.g., mean and standard deviation, or confidence intervals) before claiming a sample-complexity advantage. Without this, the observed gap between QCNN and classical CNN in Table III cannot be distinguished from chance variation.
  2. [Section IV-B, Table III] The classical CNN baseline is deliberately minimal (single Conv1D layer with 2 filters, kernel size 3, 56 parameters) and is trained with early stopping but no hyperparameter search, regularization tuning, or learning-rate schedule. On a synthetic task where the signal is a single Gaussian pulse superimposed on Poisson noise, a slightly tuned classical model of comparable parameter count could plausibly reach high accuracy with 20 training examples, which would eliminate the claimed advantage. I ask the authors to validate the baseline by reporting the performance of a properly tuned classical CNN (or several classical architectures) under the same limited-data regime, with the same number of repeated trials.
  3. [Section III-A versus Section V-D, Table III] There is an inconsistency in the reported dataset usage. Section III-A states that 600 simulated light curves were generated, with 440 for training and 160 for testing. Table III, however, reports a training set of 20 and a test set of 180, and no explanation is given for the provenance of these 200 curves or how they were selected from the full simulation. This matters because the few-shot experiment's subset may not be representative of the full dataset. The authors should specify exactly how the 20/180 split was derived, whether it is balanced, and whether it was drawn from the same 600 simulated curves.
  4. [Section IV-A, Tables I and II] The architecture details are insufficient for reproducibility. The feature map in Figure 2 is shown for 5 qubits, but experiments use 4, 6, 7, and 12 qubits, and the mapping from the 120-bin light curve (1200 s at 10 s binning) to the qubit register is not described. For the data re-uploading method, the number of re-uploading layers and the pooling/measurement strategy are not specified, and the reported parameter counts (e.g., 24 parameters for 12 qubits, 63 for 7 qubits) are not derivable from the text. I ask the authors to provide a complete specification of the circuit architecture, including the encoding map, number of layers, and measurement scheme, so that the comparisons in Tables I and II can be independently reproduced.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III-A] The sentence 'Lorentz invariance violationsnables advancements' appears to have a typo; it should likely read 'Lorentz invariance violations' followed by a verb.
  2. [Section V-B] The text says the 6-qubit model 'at best reaches 90% and 87.7% accuracy' but Table I reports 90.3% training accuracy; please align the numbers.
  3. [Section IV-D and Figure 3] The y-axis label in Figure 3 reads 'Objectuve function value'; the typo 'Objectuve' should be corrected to 'Objective'.
  4. [Section V-D] The phrase 'the QCNN achieves high accuracy (95%) using only 20 light curves in the training set and 180 in the test set' should clarify whether the 95% is training accuracy, as Table III indicates, and should explicitly state the test accuracy of 98.33% in the text.
  5. [Section V-B] The statement that the 6-qubit model 'performs faster with a factor of ~33' is ambiguous; please specify what quantity (training time, iterations, wall-clock time) is being compared and provide units.
  6. [Tables I and II] The parameter counts for the QCNN models are presented without a formula or description of how they scale with qubits and re-uploading layers; a brief explanation in the text would aid transparency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the QCNN test accuracies are held-out predictions from a genuine train/test split, and the self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing; the unseeded single-split comparison is a statistical robustness concern, not a circularity.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical benchmarking study, not a derivation, so there is no chain of equations that reduces a claimed prediction to its own inputs. The central accuracies in Tables I-IV are computed on held-out test sets after training on separate training splits, so they are genuine predictions rather than fitted quantities renamed as predictions. The few-shot sample-complexity claim in Section V-D compares a QCNN trained on 20 light curves with a classical CNN under the same training-set size; however the classical CNN is deliberately minimalistic by design, and the comparison is based on a single unseeded split with no confidence intervals. That is a legitimate scientific weakness about statistical robustness and baseline fairness, but it is not circularity: the classical result is not forced by the QCNN definition, and the QCNN accuracy is not constructed from the CNN accuracy. The paper's own text acknowledges the simulation is idealized and does not mimic realistic GRB prompt emission, which further shows the claim is empirical rather than definitional. The self-citation to the authors' prior work [15] is used for the AGILE real-data dataset composition and as background motivation; it does not carry the derivation of the QCNN's test accuracy, which is measured in this paper. There is also an internal data inconsistency (Section III states 440 training and 160 test curves from 600 total, while Table III reports 20 training and 180 test curves, with the provenance of those 200 curves unspecified), but inconsistency is not circularity. No equation is defined in terms of the result it is supposed to predict, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to forbid alternative interpretations. The central benchmark is self-contained in the sense that the numbers are produced by running the described training and evaluation procedure; the validity of the quantum-advantage claim depends on experimental controls, not on a circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's results are empirical and do not rest on fitted physical constants. The central claims depend on the realism of the simulated GRB template, the fairness of the classical baseline, and the assumption that ideal-simulator results transfer to hardware. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Simulated source amplitude scaling range = uniform multiplier in [0.1, 3.0] applied to the power-law amplitude
    Section III-A: the amplitude of each simulated GRB is scaled by a random factor uniformly sampled between 0.1 and 3.0; this hand-chosen range sets the signal-to-background difficulty, directly influencing the accuracy numbers and the few-shot comparison.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Simulated GRBs are modeled as single Gaussian pulses with a Crab-like power-law spectrum and no realistic prompt TeV emission template.
    Section III-A states the spectrum is a typical Crab-like power law because no prompt TeV GRB emission has been conclusively observed, and the temporal model is a single smooth Gaussian pulse as a first-order approximation. The classification task is much easier than real GRB detection because of this simplified morphology.
  • domain assumption The classical CNN baseline (2 Conv1D filters, kernel size 3, 56 parameters) is a fair and representative classical model for comparison.
    Section IV-B describes the CNN as minimalistic and designed to match QCNN complexity; the fairness of the few-shot advantage claim depends on this being an adequate classical baseline, which is not validated against other classical models.
  • domain assumption Noiseless ideal quantum simulation (Qiskit Aer) is representative of QCNN performance on real hardware.
    All QCNN training and evaluation use the Aer simulator with no noise model; Section VI acknowledges real hardware noise as a limitation, so the reported robustness is for ideal circuits.
  • domain assumption The AGILE real-data dataset (43 GRB, 101 background) from the authors' prior work [15] is reliable and its 70/20/10 split is representative.
    Section V-E evaluates on this dataset without describing its construction, delegating details to [15].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Benchmarking Quantum Convolutional Neural Networks for Signal Classification in Simulated Gamma-Ray Burst Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W2XBR6C2

@misc{pith2026250117041,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Benchmarking Quantum Convolutional Neural Networks for Signal Classification in Simulated Gamma-Ray Burst Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W2XBR6C2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.17041}
}
read the original abstract

This study evaluates the use of Quantum Convolutional Neural Networks (QCNNs) for identifying signals resembling Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) within simulated astrophysical datasets in the form of light curves. The task addressed here focuses on distinguishing GRB-like signals from background noise in simulated Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory (CTAO) data, the next-generation astrophysical observatory for very high-energy gamma-ray science. QCNNs, a quantum counterpart of classical Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), leverage quantum principles to process and analyze high-dimensional data efficiently. We implemented a hybrid quantum-classical machine learning technique using the Qiskit framework, with the QCNNs trained on a quantum simulator. Several QCNN architectures were tested, employing different encoding methods such as Data Reuploading and Amplitude encoding. Key findings include that QCNNs achieved accuracy comparable to classical CNNs, often surpassing 90\%, while using fewer parameters, potentially leading to more efficient models in terms of computational resources. A benchmark study further examined how hyperparameters like the number of qubits and encoding methods affected performance, with more qubits and advanced encoding methods generally enhancing accuracy but increasing complexity. QCNNs showed robust performance on time-series datasets, successfully detecting GRB signals with high precision. The research is a pioneering effort in applying QCNNs to astrophysics, offering insights into their potential and limitations. This work sets the stage for future investigations to fully realize the advantages of QCNNs in astrophysical data analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.17041 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A sample of Simulated Light curves used in training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of the used quantum circuit in QCNN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Objectuve function value against iteration during the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Comparing Quantum Machine Learning Approaches in Astrophysical Signal Detection

    astro-ph.IM 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    In simulated GRB detection, quantum fingerprinting encoding consistently outperforms data reuploading, confirming that data encoding choice dominates QML performance.

  2. Qiskit Machine Learning: an open-source library for quantum machine learning tasks at scale on quantum hardware and classical simulators

    quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    Qiskit Machine Learning is an open-source library that packages standard quantum machine learning algorithms into a scikit-learn-style Python API.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    1994

  2. [2]

    Universal quantum simulators

    Seth Lloyd. Universal quantum simulators. Science, 273:1073 – 1078, 1996

    work page 1996

  3. [3]

    Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd

    Aram W. Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations. Physical Review Letters , 103(15), October 2009

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Quantum Machine Learning: A Review and Case Studies

    Amine Zeguendry, Zahi Jarir, and Mohamed Quafafou. Quantum Machine Learning: A Review and Case Studies. Entropy, 25(2):287, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Iris Cong, Soonwon Choi, and Mikhail D. Lukin. Quantum convolutional neural networks. Nature Physics, 15(12):1273–1278, December 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Quantum Machine Learning in High Energy Physics

    Wen Guan, Gabriel Perdue, Arthur Pesah, Maria Schuld, Koji Terashi, Sofia Vallecorsa, and Jean-Roch Vlimant. Quantum Machine Learning in High Energy Physics. Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech. , 2:011003, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    A quantum-enhanced support vector machine for galaxy classification

    Mohammad Hassan Hassanshahi, Marcin Jastrzebski, Sarah Malik, and Ofer Lahav. A quantum-enhanced support vector machine for galaxy classification. 6 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Quantum Machine Learning for Radio Astronomy

    Mohammad Kordzanganeh, Aydin Utting, and Anna Scaife. Quantum Machine Learning for Radio Astronomy. In 35th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , 12 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Cerezo, Guillaume Verdon, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J

    M. Cerezo, Guillaume Verdon, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J. Coles. Challenges and Opportunities in Quantum Machine Learning. Science, 2:567–576, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Better than classical? The subtle art of benchmarking quantum machine learning models

    Joseph Bowles, Shahnawaz Ahmed, and Maria Schuld. Better than classical? The subtle art of benchmarking quantum machine learning models. 3 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Parmiggiani et al

    N. Parmiggiani et al. Preliminary Results of a New Deep Learning Method to Detect and Localize GRBs in the AGILE/GRID Sky Maps. In 32th Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems , 2 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Parmiggiani, A

    N. Parmiggiani, A. Bulgarelli, L. Castaldini, A. De Rosa, A. Di Piano, R. Falco, V . Fioretti, A. Macaluso, G. Panebianco, A. Ursi, C. Pittori, M. Tavani, and D. Beneventano. A new deep learning model to detect gamma-ray bursts in the agile anticoincidence system. The Astrophy...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Parmiggiani, A

    N. Parmiggiani, A. Bulgarelli, A. Ursi, A. Macaluso, A. Di Piano, V . Fioretti, A. Aboudan, L. Baroncelli, A. Addis, M. Tavani, and C. Pit- tori. A Deep-learning Anomaly-detection Method to Identify Gamma- Ray Bursts in the Ratemeters of the AGILE Anticoincidence System. The A...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Tavani et al

    M. Tavani et al. The AGILE Mission. Astron. Astrophys., 502:995–1013, 2009

    2009

  7. [15]

    Rizzo et al

    A. Rizzo et al. Quantum Convolutional Neural Networks for the detection of Gamma-Ray Bursts in the AGILE space mission data. In 33th Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems , 4 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    PennyLane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations

    Ville Bergholm et al. PennyLane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations. 11 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Gavin E. Crooks. Gradients of parameterized quantum gates using the parameter-shift rule and gate decomposition. 5 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Mitarai, M

    K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii. Quantum circuit learning. Physical Review A , 98(3), September 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C

    M. Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C. Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jarrod R. McClean, Kosuke Mitarai, Xiao Yuan, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J. Coles. Variational quantum algorithms. Nature Reviews Physics , 3(9):625–644, August 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Adri ´an P ´erez-Salinas, Alba Cervera-Lierta, Elies Gil-Fuster, and Jos ´e I. Latorre. Data re-uploading for a universal quantum classifier. Quantum, 4:226, February 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Ghirlanda, L

    G. Ghirlanda, L. Nava, G. Ghisellini, A. Celotti, and C. Firmani. Short versus long gamma-ray bursts: spectra, energetics, and luminosities. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 496(3):585–595, March 2009

    2009

  14. [22]

    J. P. U. Fynbo et al. Probing cosmic chemical evolution with gamma-ray bursts: grb060206 at z=4.048. Astron. Astrophys., 451:L47–L50, 2006

    2006

  15. [23]

    Stamatikos, N

    M. Stamatikos, N. Gehrels, F. Halzen, P. M ´esz´aros, and P. W. A. Roming. Multi-Messenger Astronomy with GRBs: A White Paper for the Astro2010 Decadal Survey. In astro2010: The Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey , volume 2010, page 284, January 2009

    2010

  16. [24]

    Thompson and Colleen A

    David J. Thompson and Colleen A. Wilson-Hodge. Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. 10 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    von Kienlin, C

    A. von Kienlin, C. A. Meegan, W. S. Paciesas, P. N. Bhat, E. Bissaldi, M. S. Briggs, E. Burns, W. H. Cleveland, M. H. Gibby, M. M. Giles, A. Goldstein, R. Hamburg, C. M. Hui, D. Kocevski, B. Mailyan, C. Malacaria, S. Poolakkil, R. D. Preece, O. J. Roberts, P. Veres, and C. A. ...

    2020

  18. [26]

    Poolakkil, R

    S. Poolakkil, R. Preece, C. Fletcher, A. Goldstein, P. N. Bhat, E. Bissaldi, M. S. Briggs, E. Burns, W. H. Cleveland, M. M. Giles, C. M. Hui, D. Kocevski, S. Lesage, B. Mailyan, C. Malacaria, W. S. Paciesas, O. J. Roberts, P. Veres, A. von Kienlin, and C. A. Wilson-Hodge. The ...

    2021

  19. [27]

    Gehrels et al

    N. Gehrels et al. The Swift Gamma-Ray Burst Mission. Astrophys. J., 611:1005–1020, 2004. [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 621, 558 (2005)]

    2005

  20. [28]

    A. Ursi, M. Romani, F. Verrecchia, C. Pittori, M. Tavani, M. Marisaldi, M. Galli, C. Labanti, N. Parmiggiani, A. Bulgarelli, A. Addis, L. Baron- celli, M. Cardillo, C. Casentini, P. W. Cattaneo, A. Chen, A. Di Piano, F. Fuschino, F. Longo, F. Lucarelli, A. Morselli, G. Piano, ...

    2022

  21. [29]

    B. S. Acharya et al. Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array. WSP, 11 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2019

    Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array . WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Sip”ocz, Tim Unbehaun, Christopher van Eldik, Thomas Vuillaume, and Roberta Zanin

    Axel Donath, R ´egis Terrier, Quentin Remy, Atreyee Sinha, Cosimo Nigro, Fabio Pintore, Bruno Kh ´elifi, Laura Olivera-Nieto, Jose Enrique Ruiz, Kai Br ¨ugge, Maximilian Linhoff, Jose Luis Contreras, Fabio Acero, Arnau Aguasca-Cabot, David Berge, Pooja Bhattacharjee, Jo- hanne...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Evolution of data formats in very-high-energy gamma-ray astronomy

    Cosimo Nigro, Tarek Hassan, and Laura Olivera-Nieto. Evolution of data formats in very-high-energy gamma-ray astronomy. Universe, 7(10), 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Gammapy: Python toolbox for gamma-ray astronomy, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10726484, 02 2024

    Fabio Acero, Juan Bernete, Noah Biederbeck, Julia Djuvsland, Axel Donath, Kirsty Feijen, Stefan Fr ¨ose, Claudio Galelli, Bruno Kh ´elifi, Jana Konrad, Paula Kornecki, Maximilian Linhoff, Kurt McKee, Si- mone Mender, Daniel Morcuende, Laura Olivera-Nieto, Fabio Pin- tore, Mich...

    doi

  26. [34]

    Patricelli, A

    B. Patricelli, A. Carosi, L. Nava, M. Seglar-Arroyo, F. Sch ¨ussler, A. Stamerra, A. Adelfio, H. Ashkar, A. Bulgarelli, T. Di Girolamo, A. Di Piano, T. Gasparetto, J. G. Green, F. Longo, I. Agudo, A. Berti, E. Bissaldi, G. Cella, A. Circiello, S. Covino, G. Ghirlanda, B. Humen...

    2022

  27. [35]

    CTAO Instrument Response Functions - prod5 version v0.1, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5499840, September 2021

    Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory and Cherenkov Telescope Ar- ray Consortium. CTAO Instrument Response Functions - prod5 version v0.1, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5499840, September 2021

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    Johnson, and Al ´an Aspuru-Guzik

    Sukin Sim, Peter D. Johnson, and Al ´an Aspuru-Guzik. Express- ibility and Entangling Capability of Parameterized Quantum Circuits for Hybrid Quantum-Classical Algorithms. Adv. Quantum Technol. , 2(12):1900070, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    Caro, Hsin-Yuan Huang, M

    Matthias C. Caro, Hsin-Yuan Huang, M. Cerezo, Kunal Sharma, Andrew Sornborger, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J. Coles. Generalization in quantum machine learning from few training data. Nature Commun. , 13(1):4919, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.