Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 7 cited by

Artificial intelligence for representing and characterizing quantum systems

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review maps the growing field of AI for quantum system characterization into three learning paradigms—machine learning, deep learning, and language models—and two core tasks, quantum property prediction and surrogate construction, argu

desk verdict A genuinely useful survey whose central three-paradigm framing does not hold up under close reading. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04923 v1 pith:CNO6B4PP submitted 2025-09-05 quant-ph cs.AIcs.LG

Yuxuan Du , Yan Zhu , Yuan-Hang Zhang , Min-Hsiu Hsieh , Patrick Rebentrost , Weibo Gao , Ya-Dong Wu , Jens Eisert
show 3 more authors
Giulio Chiribella Dacheng Tao Barry C. Sanders
This is my paper
classification quant-phcs.AIcs.LG MSC 81P6868T0781-02
keywords quantumsystemcharacterizationpropertypredictionneuralstateslanguagemodelsforsimulationclassicalshadowsmachinelearningmany-bodyphysicsfoundationsystemsbenchmarking
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

This review argues that the many recent efforts to use artificial intelligence for understanding large quantum systems are best understood through a small map: three learning paradigms—machine learning, deep learning, and language models—applied to two core tasks, predicting quantum properties and building surrogates for quantum states. The authors assemble evidence from theoretical guarantees, numerical simulations, and experiments to show that each paradigm contributes differently: ML offers provably efficient prediction of linear properties; DL extends prediction to nonlinear properties and learns generative surrogates; language models pre-train on measurement statistics to become reusable foundation models. If this framing holds, it gives researchers a principled way to choose methods and clarifies where the open problems lie, such as whether advanced models really outperform classical ML under equal measurement budgets. The review's value is organizational and critical: it consolidates a rapidly growing literature and identifies benchmarks and theoretical questions that would settle the field's direction.

What carries the argument

The organizing machinery is a task-paradigm matrix. On one axis sit the learning paradigms: ML models built on engineered feature maps and kernels (e.g., truncated Dirichlet kernel, shadow-representation predictors), DL models that learn latent representations and act as generative models (e.g., autoregressive RNNs and transformers, energy-based RBMs), and GPT-style language models that pre-train on measurement outcome distributions and fine-tune for specific properties. On the other axis sit the tasks: linear property prediction (expectation values of observables), nonlinear property prediction (entropy, fidelity, phase classification), and implicit quantum state reconstruction (learning a

What would settle it

Run a pre-registered benchmark that fixes the total quantum measurement budget and training data for a canonical family (e.g., 2D random Heisenberg ground states) and compares kernel ML, a CNN/transformer DL model, and a GPT-style LM on identical property prediction tasks. If DL and LM models never outperform the kernel method under any fair budget, the paper's 'synergistic paradigms' framing would lose its practical justification, reducing to an annotated bibliography.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that AI-based characterization of scalable quantum systems—states from analog simulators and digital quantum computers—can be systematically organized by AI methodology rather than by application. It identifies three learning paradigms: machine learning (linear-regression and kernel models with engineered feature maps), deep learning (neural networks that learn representations and generative models), and language models (GPT-style transformers pre-trained on measurement distributions and fine-tuned for downstream tasks). These paradigms address two core tasks: quantum property prediction (linear and nonlinear) and the construction of surrogates for quantum states

Load-bearing premise

The review's whole structure depends on the assumption that 'machine learning, deep learning, and language models' is a faithful and useful way to slice the field; since the paper itself notes deep learning is a subclass of machine learning and language models are a class of deep learning, the categories are not clean, and if the taxonomy is arbitrary the review's organizing value collapses to that of an annotated bibliography.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the map is correct, researchers can select a paradigm by task: kernel ML when provable guarantees on linear properties are required; DL when nonlinear or multi-property predictions are needed; LMs when reusable, fine-tunable surrogates across state families are wanted.
  • The distinction between measurement-agnostic and measurement-based protocols becomes a primary design choice: it determines whether the trained model needs quantum measurement data at prediction time.
  • Open benchmarks under fixed measurement budgets would decide whether DL/LM advantages over ML are real; the review notes current comparisons are often unfair due to differing measurement strategies.
  • A general-purpose foundation model for quantum systems, pre-trained on diverse quantum data and fine-tuned to new tasks, is a concrete next target if the LM paradigm scales.
  • Provably efficient ML for nonlinear properties, such as entanglement or fidelity, remains the central open theoretical question, with topological phase classification as the only known nontrivial case.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The taxonomy implies that the bottleneck for AI-driven characterization may shift from model architecture to data acquisition and measurement design; if so, investment in measurement protocols and open datasets could matter more than new neural architectures.
  • The convergence of classical shadows and learned latent representations suggests a possible unified 'learned shadow' formulation, where both serve as compressed summaries of quantum states; a testable extension would be comparing their sample-complexity trade-offs on the same tasks.
  • The review's emphasis on measurement-based protocols hints that future quantum advantage may be located in adaptive measurement strategies rather than in model expressivity—an inference the paper does not explicitly draw.
  • If foundation models trained on measurement statistics scale like language models, one might expect 'scaling laws' for quantum-state surrogates, where performance improves predictably with model size and training data—an untested but natural prediction from the LM paradigm.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a review of AI-based approaches to representing and characterizing scalable quantum systems. It organizes recent literature into three paradigms—machine learning, deep learning, and language models—applied to two core tasks: quantum property prediction and construction of quantum-state surrogates. The paper gives general workflows, representative algorithms, tables of methods, and a list of open questions. The ML sections emphasize provable sample-complexity results for linear property prediction; the DL sections cover property prediction, implicit state reconstruction, and applications to quantum computing; the LM section discusses GPT-style foundation models. The review also candidly notes that controlled comparisons of DL/LM versus classical ML are still lacking.

Significance. The manuscript is useful as a broad, reasonably careful survey: it assembles a large literature, is explicit about scope, and states sample-complexity results in Section III with care. It also deserves credit for openly flagging, in Section VI, that systematic benchmarking has not established a consistent advantage of deep learning or language models over classical ML, and for citing Ref. [299] in this context. If the organizing taxonomy were applied consistently, the review would be a valuable entry point for researchers choosing among ML, DL, and LM methods. However, the central three-paradigm claim is not supported consistently at the boundary between the deep-learning and language-model sections; this needs to be fixed before the paper's main organizing message is reliable.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. V.A–V.B (Eq. (12), 'Foundation model without quantum data')] The LM paradigm is defined in Section V.A by GPT-style pre-training/fine-tuning and an autoregressive negative log-likelihood objective over measurement outcomes (Eq. (12)). Yet the third concrete class in Section V.B, 'Foundation model without quantum data,' classifies Ref. [207] as an LM even though the displayed loss for that model is a variational energy ⟨ψ(θ;x)|H(x)|ψ(θ;x)⟩/⟨ψ(θ;x)|ψ(θ;x)⟩, with no autoregressive or language-modeling objective and no pre-training/fine-tuning protocol. This is not a boundary case: it is the variational neural-quantum-state approach already discussed under deep learning in Section IV.B.3, which the paper says is not its primary focus. Because the abstract's central claim is that AI-driven characterization is faithfully categorized into three paradigms, this inconsistent classification is load-bearing. Please reclassify Ref. [207], broaden the definiti
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II] The introduction of Fig. 2 and the text state that DL is a subfield of ML and that LMs are a specific class of DL architectures. The abstract nonetheless advertises 'three synergistic paradigms.' Please clarify whether the taxonomy is a partition of the field or a methodological hierarchy; if the latter, define 'paradigm' accordingly so that readers do not expect disjoint categories.
  2. [Eq. (12)] The symbol T is overloaded: in Eq. (3) it is the number of measurement shots per state, while in Eq. (12) T(x^{(i)}) denotes the set of measurement outcomes and T also denotes the number of snapshots. Please use distinct notation, e.g., M(x^{(i)}) for the outcome set.
  3. [Table I and Sec. III.B.1] The runtime expression O(dO(C/ϵ)) is ambiguous and appears both in the text and in Table I. Please clarify the intended dependence (e.g., O(d · poly(C/ϵ)) or O(d · 2^{O(C/ϵ)})).
  4. [Sec. VI, Question 3] The review's own discussion concedes that DL does not consistently outperform classical ML and that random forest outperforms DL in error-mitigation benchmarks. This is honest, but it creates tension with the 'synergistic paradigms' framing. Please spell out what 'synergy' means concretely—e.g., different trade-offs in sample efficiency, measurement access, or transferability—so the central organizational claim is not merely a list of architectures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is an organizational literature review; its taxonomy is not a derived prediction and self-citations are illustrative, not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is a literature review, not a derivation. Its central claim is taxonomic: AI approaches for quantum system characterization can be organized into ML, DL, and LM paradigms applied to property prediction and state reconstruction. No quantity is derived from first principles, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked to force a choice. The cited works, including self-citations such as Refs. [81,199,282,283,302,303], serve as examples within the described taxonomy rather than as load-bearing evidence for a derived result. The review explicitly disclaims that any single categorization is definitive (Section II.C: 'no single and definitive categorization can encompass all models'), so the taxonomy is not presented as forced by prior results. The manuscript does contain a notable internal inconsistency: Section V.A defines the LM paradigm by GPT-style autoregressive pretraining (Eq. 12), yet Section V.B's 'Foundation model without quantum data' (describing Ref. [207]) is a variational energy-minimizing transformer ansatz, which the paper's own Section IV.B.3 classifies under variational NQS and which lacks a language-modeling objective. This is an organizational inconsistency and a potential correctness concern, but it is not circularity: no claim is reduced to its own input by construction. The review's value as an annotated map of the field may be questioned, but the circularity burden is not met. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, no derived equations, and no new physical entities; the ledger reflects the assumptions any reader must grant to trust the review.

assumptions (3)
  • standard math The Hilbert space of an N-qubit system has dimension 2^N, so exact classical description is infeasible for large N.
    Invoked in the Introduction to motivate learning-based characterization.
  • ad hoc to paper The works surveyed since 2022 are representative of the field.
    Scope selection stated in the Introduction; not derived from any benchmark.
  • domain assumption Citations accurately reflect the methods and results being summarized.
    The review's reliability as a survey depends on faithful reporting of numerous cited theorems and experiments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Artificial intelligence for representing and characterizing quantum systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CNO6B4PP

@misc{pith2026250904923,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Artificial intelligence for representing and characterizing quantum systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CNO6B4PP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04923}
}
read the original abstract

Efficient characterization of large-scale quantum systems, especially those produced by quantum analog simulators and megaquop quantum computers, poses a central challenge in quantum science due to the exponential scaling of the Hilbert space with respect to system size. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), with its aptitude for high-dimensional pattern recognition and function approximation, have emerged as a powerful tool to address this challenge. A growing body of research has leveraged AI to represent and characterize scalable quantum systems, spanning from theoretical foundations to experimental realizations. Depending on how prior knowledge and learning architectures are incorporated, the integration of AI into quantum system characterization can be categorized into three synergistic paradigms: machine learning, and, in particular, deep learning and language models. This review discusses how each of these AI paradigms contributes to two core tasks in quantum systems characterization: quantum property prediction and the construction of surrogates for quantum states. These tasks underlie diverse applications, from quantum certification and benchmarking to the enhancement of quantum algorithms and the understanding of strongly correlated phases of matter. Key challenges and open questions are also discussed, together with future prospects at the interface of AI and quantum science.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04923 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

  1. OmniQEC: discovering practical quantum error-correcting codes by an AI scientist

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    OmniQEC discovers qLDPC codes whose simulated circuit-level logical error rates beat the BB [[72,12,6]] and [[144,12,12]] baselines at 98- and 240-qubit budgets.

  2. Learning Topological Quantum Phases from Limited Subsystems

    quant-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Quantum kernels built from reduced density matrices of 1–4 sites classify the full phase diagrams of the generalized cluster-Ising and anisotropic Haldane chains, including SPT phases, and generalize across system sizes.

  3. Learning to Reconstruct Wigner Functions in Phase Space

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Two machine learning models reconstruct continuous Wigner functions from sparse phase-space measurements: a provably efficient regression model for sparse states (O(s⁴ log d) samples) and a self-supervised neural netw...

  4. Comparing Classical Simulation and Sample-Based Learning of Quantum Systems

    quant-ph 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For random MPS and Clifford+T circuits, increases in entanglement or T-count correlate with sharper loss minima and worse reconstruction under constrained neural capacity.

  5. Comparing Classical Simulation and Sample-Based Learning of Quantum Systems

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Empirical study finds neural-network learning difficulty (via Hessian eigenvalue and random subspace optimization) correlates with classical simulation hardness parameterized by MPS bond dimension and T-gate count.

  6. Spectral Decimation of Quantum Many-Body Hamiltonians

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    For a spectrum that is a statistical mixture of independent symmetry sectors, the correlated remainder after removing Poisson-distributed gaps has expected size equal to the size-biased average of the sector dimensions.

  7. Data-Driven Learnability Transition of Measurement-Induced Entanglement

    quant-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A transformer trained only on measurement outcomes estimates measurement-induced entanglement with polynomial resources below a critical circuit depth; above it the estimate saturates at maximal uncertainty — a learna...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

300 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [207]

    Rende, L

    R. Rende, L. L. Viteritti, F. Becca, A. Scardicchio, A. Laio, and G. Carleo. Foundation neural-networks quantum states as a unified ansatz for multiple Hamiltonians.Nature Communi- cations, 16:7213, 2025

    2025

  2. [299]

    Y . Zhao, C. Zhang, and Y . Du. Rethink the role of deep learning towards large-scale quantum systems, 2025. arXiv:2505.13852v1

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  3. [1]

    Aaronson

    S. Aaronson. Shadow tomography of quantum states. InPro- ceedings of the 50th annual ACM SIGACT symposium on the- ory of computing, pages 325–338, 2018

    2018

  4. [2]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman. Improved simulation of sta- bilizer circuits.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 70:052328, 2004

    2004

  5. [3]

    Acampora et al

    G. Acampora et al. Quantum computing and artificial intelli- gence: status and perspectives.arXiv:2505.23860, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  6. [4]

    Agrawal, J

    U. Agrawal, J. Lopez-Piqueres, R. Vasseur, S. Gopalakrish- nan, and A. C. Potter. Observing quantum measurement collapse as a learnability phase transition.Phys. Rev. X, 14:041012, Oct 2024

    2024

  7. [5]

    Aharonov, X

    D. Aharonov, X. Gao, Z. Landau, Y . Liu, and U. Vazirani. A polynomial-time classical algorithm for noisy random circuit sampling. InProceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 945–957, 2023

    2023

  8. [6]

    Ahmed, C

    S. Ahmed, C. S. Mu ˜noz, F. Nori, and A. F. Kockum. Quan- tum state tomography with conditional generative adversarial networks.Phys. Rev. Lett., 127:140502, 2021

    2021

Show all 300 references
  1. [7]

    G. Q. AI and Collaborators. Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold.Nature, 638:920–926, 2025

    2025

  2. [8]

    Ai and Y .-X

    H. Ai and Y .-X. Liu. Scalable parameter design for supercon- ducting quantum circuits with graph neural networks.Phys. Rev. Lett., 135:040601, 2025

    2025

  3. [9]

    A. A. Akhtar, H.-Y . Hu, and Y .-Z. You. Measurement- induced criticality is tomographically optimal.Phys. Rev. B, 109:094209, Mar 2024

    2024

  4. [10]

    Alexeev et al

    Y . Alexeev et al. Artificial intelligence for quantum comput- ing.arXiv:2411.09131, 2024

    2024

  5. [11]

    Z. An, J. Wu, Z. Lin, X. Yang, K. Li, and B. Zeng. Dual- capability machine learning models for quantum hamiltonian parameter estimation and dynamics prediction.Phys. Rev. Lett., 134:120202, 2025

    2025

  6. [12]

    Z. An, J. Wu, M. Yang, D. L. Zhou, and B. Zeng. Uni- fied quantum state tomography and Hamiltonian learning: A language-translation-like approach for quantum systems. Phys. Rev. Appl., 21:014037, 2024

    2024

  7. [13]

    T. I. Andersen et al. Thermalization and criticality on an analogue–digital quantum simulator.Nature, 638:79–85, 2025

    2025

  8. [14]

    Anshu and S

    A. Anshu and S. Arunachalam. A survey on the complexity of learning quantum states.Nature Rev. Phys., 6:59–69, 2024

    2024

  9. [15]

    Arnold and F

    J. Arnold and F. Sch ¨afer. Replacing neural networks by opti- mal analytical predictors for the detection of phase transitions. Phys. Rev. X, 12:031044, 2022

    2022

  10. [16]

    Arnold, F

    J. Arnold, F. Sch ¨afer, M. ˇZonda, and A. U. J. Lode. Inter- pretable and unsupervised phase classification.Phys. Rev. Res., 3:033052, 2021

    2021

  11. [17]

    Arunachalam and R

    S. Arunachalam and R. de Wolf. Guest column: A survey of quantum learning theory.ACM Sigact News, 48:41–67, 2017

    2017

  12. [18]

    N. Asif, U. Khalid, A. Khan, T. Q. Duong, and H. Shin. En- tanglement detection with artificial neural networks.Sci. Rep., 13:1562, 2023

    2023

  13. [19]

    Baltru ˇsaitis, C

    T. Baltru ˇsaitis, C. Ahuja, and L.-P. Morency. Multimodal ma- chine learning: A survey and taxonomy.IEEE Trans. Patt. Ana. Mach. Int., 41:423–443, 2018

    2018

  14. [20]

    T. Bao, X. Ye, H. Ruan, C. Liu, W. Wu, and J. Yan. Beyond cir- cuit connections: A non-message passing graph transformer approach for quantum error mitigation. InThe Thirteenth In- ternational Conference on Learning Representations

  15. [21]

    Barratt, U

    F. Barratt, U. Agrawal, A. C. Potter, S. Gopalakrishnan, and R. Vasseur. Transitions in the learnability of global charges from local measurements.Phys. Rev. Lett., 129:200602, Nov 2022

    2022

  16. [22]

    Bausch et al

    J. Bausch et al. Learning high-accuracy error decoding for quantum processors.Nature, pages 1–7, 2024

    2024

  17. [23]

    Begu ˇsi´c, J

    T. Begu ˇsi´c, J. Gray, and G. K.-L. Chan. Fast and converged classical simulations of evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance.Sci. Adv., 10:eadk4321, 2024

    2024

  18. [24]

    Bengio, A

    Y . Bengio, A. Courville, and P. Vincent. Representation learn- ing: A review and new perspectives.IEEE Trans. Patt. Ana. Mach. Int., 35:1798–1828, 2013

    2013

  19. [25]

    E. R. Bennewitz, F. Hopfmueller, B. Kulchytskyy, J. Car- rasquilla, and P. Ronagh. Neural error mitigation of near-term quantum simulations.Nature Mach. Intell., 4:618–624, 2022

    2022

  20. [26]

    Bertoni, J

    C. Bertoni, J. Haferkamp, M. Hinsche, M. Ioannou, J. Eis- ert, and H. Pashayan. Shallow shadows: Expectation estima- tion using low-depth random clifford circuits.Phys. Rev. Lett., 133:020602, 2024

    2024

  21. [27]

    Bharti et al

    K. Bharti et al. Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms. Rev. Mod. Phys., 94:015004, 2022

    2022

  22. [28]

    C. M. Bishop and N. M. Nasrabadi.Pattern recognition and machine learning, volume 4. Springer, 2006

    2006

  23. [29]

    Bluvstein et al

    D. Bluvstein et al. Logical quantum processor based on recon- figurable atom arrays.Nature, 626:58–65, 2024

    2024

  24. [30]

    Bohrdt, S

    A. Bohrdt, S. Kim, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schittko, M. Knap, M. Greiner, and J. L ´eonard. Analyzing nonequilib- 26 rium quantum states through snapshots with artificial neural networks.Phys. Rev. Lett., 127:150504, 2021

    2021

  25. [31]

    D. A. Boiko, R. MacKnight, B. Kline, and G. Gomes. Au- tonomous chemical research with large language models.Na- ture, 624:570–578, 2023

    2023

  26. [32]

    Bouland, B

    A. Bouland, B. Fefferman, S. Ghosh, T. Metger, U. Vazirani, C. Zhang, and Z. Zhou. Public-key pseudoentanglement and the hardness of learning ground state entanglement structure. arXiv:2311.12017, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Bouland, C

    A. Bouland, C. Zhang, and Z. Zhou. On the hardness of learn- ing ground state entanglement of geometrically local Hamil- tonians.arXiv:2411.04353, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Bourgund et al

    D. Bourgund et al. Formation of individual stripes in a mixed-dimensional cold-atom Fermi–Hubbard system.Na- ture, 637:57–62, 2025

    2025

  29. [35]

    Bravyi and D

    S. Bravyi and D. Gosset. Improved classical simulation of quantum circuits dominated by Clifford gates.Phys. Rev. Lett., 116:250501, 2016

    2016

  30. [36]

    Brown et al

    T. Brown et al. Language models are few-shot learners.Adv. Neur. Inf. Proc. Sys., 33:1877–1901, 2020

    1901

  31. [37]

    Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Huggins, Y . Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien. Quantum error miti- gation.Rev. Mod. Phys., 95:045005, 2023

    2023

  32. [38]

    Campaioli, J

    F. Campaioli, J. H. Cole, and H. Hapuarachchi. Quantum mas- ter equations: Tips and tricks for quantum optics, quantum computing, and beyond.PRX Quantum, 5:020202, 2024

    2024

  33. [39]

    Campbell, H

    C. Campbell, H. M. Chen, W. Luk, and H. Fan. Enhancing LLM-based quantum code generation with multi-agent opti- mization and quantum error correction.arXiv:2504.14557, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  34. [40]

    H. Cao, F. Pan, Y . Wang, and P. Zhang. qecGPT: decoding quantum error-correcting codes with generative pre-trained transformers.arXiv:2307.09025, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  35. [41]

    S. Cao, Z. Zhang, M. Alghadeer, S. D. Fasciati, M. Piscitelli, M. Bakr, P. Leek, and A. Aspuru-Guzik. Agents for self-driving laboratories applied to quantum computing. arXiv:2412.07978, 2024

    2024

  36. [42]

    Y . Cao, S. Li, Y . Liu, Z. Yan, Y . Dai, P. S. Yu, and L. Sun. A comprehensive survey of AI-generated content (AIGC): A history of generative AI from GAN to ChatGPT. arXiv:2303.04226, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  37. [43]

    Carleo, I

    G. Carleo, I. Cirac, K. Cranmer, L. Daudet, M. Schuld, N. Tishby, L. V ogt-Maranto, and L. Zdeborov ´a. Ma- chine learning and the physical sciences.Rev. Mod. Phys., 91:045002, 2019

    2019

  38. [44]

    Carleo and M

    G. Carleo and M. Troyer. Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks.Science, 355:602– 606, 2017

    2017

  39. [45]

    Carrasco, A

    J. Carrasco, A. Elben, C. Kokail, B. Kraus, and P. Zoller. The- oretical and experimental perspectives of quantum verifica- tion.PRX Quantum, 2:010102, 2021

    2021

  40. [46]

    Carrasquilla

    J. Carrasquilla. Machine learning for quantum matter.Adv. Phys. X, 5:1797528, 2020

    2020

  41. [47]

    Carrasquilla and R

    J. Carrasquilla and R. G. Melko. Machine learning phases of matter.Nature Phys., 13:431, 2017

    2017

  42. [48]

    Carrasquilla and G

    J. Carrasquilla and G. Torlai. How to use neural networks to investigate quantum many-body physics.PRX Quantum, 2:040201, 2021

    2021

  43. [49]

    Carrasquilla, G

    J. Carrasquilla, G. Torlai, R. G. Melko, and L. Aolita. Re- constructing quantum states with generative models.Nature Mach. Intell., 1:155–161, 2019

    2019

  44. [50]

    Cerezo et al

    M. Cerezo et al. Variational quantum algorithms.Nature Rev. Phys., 3:625–644, 2021

    2021

  45. [51]

    Cerezo et al

    M. Cerezo et al. Does provable absence of barren plateaus imply classical simulability? or, why we need to rethink vari- ational quantum computing.arXiv:2312.09121, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  46. [52]

    Cerezo, M

    M. Cerezo, M. Larocca, D. Garc ´ıa-Mart´ın, N. L. Diaz, P. Braccia, E. Fontana, M. S. Rudolph, S. T. Pablo Bermejo, Aroosa Ijaz, E. R. Anschuetz, and Z. Holmes. Does provable absence of barren plateaus imply classical simulability.Nature Comm., 16:7907, 2025

    2025

  47. [53]

    Cervera-Lierta, J

    A. Cervera-Lierta, J. S. Kottmann, and A. Aspuru-Guzik. Meta-variational quantum eigensolver: Learning energy pro- files of parameterized Hamiltonians for quantum simulation. PRX Quantum, 2:020329, 2021

    2021

  48. [54]

    P. Cha, P. Ginsparg, F. Wu, J. Carrasquilla, P. L. McMahon, and E.-A. Kim. Attention-based quantum tomography.Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol., 3:01LT01, 2021

    2021

  49. [55]

    Chang et al

    Y . Chang et al. A survey on evaluation of large language mod- els.ACM transactions on intelligent systems and technology, 15:1–45, 2024

    2024

  50. [56]

    L. Che, C. Wei, Y . Huang, D. Zhao, S. Xue, X. Nie, J. Li, D. Lu, and T. Xin. Learning quantum Hamiltonians from single-qubit measurements.Phys. Rev. Res., 3:023246, 2021

    2021

  51. [57]

    Y . Che, C. Gneiting, and F. Nori. Exponentially improved efficient machine learning for quantum many-body states with provable guarantees.Phys. Rev. Res., 6:033035, 2024

    2024

  52. [58]

    Y . Che, C. Gneiting, X. Wang, and F. Nori. Quantum circuit complexity and unsupervised machine learning of topological order.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.04486, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  53. [59]

    Chen and M

    A. Chen and M. Heyl. Empowering deep neural quantum states through efficient optimization.Nature Phys., 20:1476– 1481, 2024

    2024

  54. [60]

    C. Chen, C. Ren, H. Lin, and H. Lu. Entanglement struc- ture detection via machine learning.Quantum Sci. Tech., 6:035017, 2021

    2021

  55. [61]

    S. Chen, Y . Liu, M. Otten, A. Seif, B. Fefferman, and L. Jiang. The learnability of Pauli noise.Nature Comm., 14:52, 2023

    2023

  56. [62]

    S. Chen, J. d. D. Pont, J.-T. Hsieh, H.-Y . Huang, J. Lange, and J. Li. Predicting quantum channels over general product distributions.arXiv:2409.03684, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  57. [63]

    Y . Chen, Y . Pan, G. Zhang, and S. Cheng. Detecting quantum entanglement with unsupervised learning.Quantum Sci. Tech., 7:015005, 2021

    2021

  58. [64]

    Z. Chen, X. Lin, and Z. Wei. Certifying unknown genuine multipartite entanglement by neural networks.Quantum Sci. Tech., 8:035029, 2023

    2023

  59. [65]

    Cho and D

    G. Cho and D. Kim. Machine learning on quantum experimen- tal data toward solving quantum many-body problems.Nature Comm., 15:7552, 2024

    2024

  60. [66]

    M. Choi, D. Flam-Shepherd, T. H. Kyaw, and A. Aspuru- Guzik. Learning quantum dynamics with latent neural ordi- nary differential equations.Phys. Rev. A, 105:042403, 2022

    2022

  61. [67]

    Cimini, M

    V . Cimini, M. Barbieri, N. Treps, M. Walschaers, and V . Pa- rigi. Neural networks for detecting multimode Wigner nega- tivity.Phys. Rev. Lett., 125:160504, 2020

    2020

  62. [68]

    J. I. Cirac, D. P ´erez-Garc´ıa, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete. Ma- trix product states and projected entangled pair states: Con- cepts, symmetries, theorems.Rev. Mod. Phys., 93:045003, 2021

    2021

  63. [69]

    Cirstoiu

    C. Cirstoiu. A Fourier analysis framework for approximate classical simulations of quantum circuits.arXiv:2410.13856, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  64. [70]

    Cramer, M

    M. Cramer, M. B. Plenio, S. T. Flammia, R. Somma, D. Gross, S. Bartlett, O. Landon-Cardinal, D. Poulin, and Y .-K. Liu. Efficient quantum state tomography.Nature Comm., 1:149, 2010. 27

    2010

  65. [71]

    Cybi ´nski, M

    K. Cybi ´nski, M. Płodzie ´n, M. Tomza, M. Lewenstein, A. Dauphin, and A. Dawid. Characterizing out-of-distribution generalization of neural networks: application to the disor- dered Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model.Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech- nol., 6:015014, 2025

    2025

  66. [72]

    Czarnik, A

    P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio. Error mit- igation with clifford quantum-circuit data.Quantum, 5:592, 2021

    2021

  67. [73]

    Czarnik, M

    P. Czarnik, M. McKerns, A. T. Sornborger, and L. Cincio. Improving the efficiency of learning-based error mitigation. arXiv:2204.07109, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  68. [74]

    Czischek, M

    S. Czischek, M. S. Moss, M. Radzihovsky, E. Merali, and R. G. Melko. Data-enhanced variational Monte Carlo simu- lations for Rydberg atom arrays.Phys. Rev. B, 105:205108, 2022

    2022

  69. [75]

    Dawid, J

    A. Dawid, J. Arnold, B. Requena, A. Gresch, M. Płodzie ´n, K. Donatella, K. A. Nicoli, P. Stornati, R. Koch, M. B¨uttner, R. Okuła, G. Mu˜noz-Gil, R. A. Vargas-Hern´andez, A. Cervera-Lierta, J. Carrasquilla, V . Dunjko, M. Gabri ´e, P. H. E. van Nieuwenburg, F. Vicentini, L. W...

    2025

  70. [76]

    de Schoulepnikoff, G

    P. de Schoulepnikoff, G. Mu ˜noz-Gil, H. P. Nautrup, and H. J. Briegel. Interpretable representation learning of quan- tum data enabled by probabilistic variational autoencoders. arXiv:2506.11982, 2025

    2025

  71. [77]

    DeCross et al

    M. DeCross et al. The computational power of random quan- tum circuits in arbitrary geometries.arXiv:2406.02501, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  72. [78]

    Dehghani, A

    H. Dehghani, A. Lavasani, M. Hafezi, and M. J. Gullans. Neural-network decoders for measurement induced phase transitions.Nature Comm., 14:2918, 2023

    2023

  73. [79]

    Denis, F

    J. Denis, F. Damanet, and J. Martin. Estimation of the geo- metric measure of entanglement with wehrl moments through artificial neural networks.SciPost Physics, 15:208, 2023

    2023

  74. [80]

    Du et al

    Y . Du et al. Quantum machine learning: A hands-on tutorial for machine learning practitioners and researchers. arXiv:2502.01146, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  75. [81]

    Du, M.-H

    Y . Du, M.-H. Hsieh, and D. Tao. Efficient learning for linear properties of bounded-gate quantum circuits.Nature Comm., 16:3790, 2025

    2025

  76. [82]

    Y . Du, Y . Yang, T. Liu, Z. Lin, B. Ghanem, and D. Tao. Shadownet for data-centric quantum system learning. arXiv:2308.11290, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  77. [83]

    Y . Du, Y . Yang, D. Tao, and M.-H. Hsieh. Problem-dependent power of quantum neural networks on multiclass classifica- tion.Phys. Rev. Lett., 131:140601, 2023

    2023

  78. [84]

    Dupuis, L

    N. Dupuis, L. Buratti, S. Vishwakarma, A. V . Forrat, D. Kre- mer, I. Faro, R. Puri, and J. Cruz-Benito. Qiskit code assistant: Training LLMs for generating quantum computing code. In 2024 IEEE LLM Aided Design Workshop (LAD), pages 1–4. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  79. [85]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio. Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy.Rev. Mod. Phys., 82:277, 2010

    2010

  80. [86]

    Eisert, D

    J. Eisert, D. Hangleiter, N. Walk, I. Roth, D. Markham, R. Parekh, U. Chabaud, and E. Kashefi. Quantum certifica- tion and benchmarking.Nature Rev. Phys., 2:382–390, 2020

    2020

  81. [87]

    Elben et al

    A. Elben et al. Cross-platform verification of intermediate scale quantum devices.Phys. Rev. Lett., 124:010504, 2020

    2020

  82. [88]

    Elben, S

    A. Elben, S. T. Flammia, H.-Y . Huang, R. Kueng, J. Preskill, B. Vermersch, and P. Zoller. The randomized measurement toolbox.Nature Rev. Phys., 5:9–24, 2023

    2023

  83. [89]

    Fitzek et al

    D. Fitzek et al. RydbergGPT.arXiv:2405.21052, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  84. [90]

    Flam-Shepherd, T

    D. Flam-Shepherd, T. C. Wu, X. Gu, A. Cervera-Lierta, M. Krenn, and A. Aspuru-Guzik. Learning interpretable rep- resentations of entanglement in quantum optics experiments using deep generative models.Nature Mach. Intell., 4:544– 554, 2022

    2022

  85. [91]

    S. T. Flammia and Y .-K. Liu. Direct fidelity estimation from few pauli measurements.Phys. Rev. Lett., 106:230501, 2011

    2011

  86. [92]

    Fontana, M

    E. Fontana, M. S. Rudolph, R. Duncan, I. Rungger, and C. Cˆırstoiu. Classical simulations of noisy variational quan- tum circuits.arXiv:2306.05400, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  87. [93]

    F ¨osel, M

    T. F ¨osel, M. Y . Niu, F. Marquardt, and L. Li. Quan- tum circuit optimization with deep reinforcement learning. arXiv:2103.07585, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  88. [94]

    Friedrich and J

    L. Friedrich and J. Maziero. Avoiding barren plateaus with classical deep neural networks.Phys. Rev. A, 106:042433, 2022

    2022

  89. [95]

    Frohnert and E

    F. Frohnert and E. van Nieuwenburg. Explainable represen- tation learning of small quantum states.Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol., 5:015001, 2024

    2024

  90. [96]

    F ¨urrutter, G

    F. F ¨urrutter, G. Mu˜noz-Gil, and H. J. Briegel. Quantum circuit synthesis with diffusion models.Nature Mach. Intell., 6:515– 524, 2024

    2024

  91. [97]

    B. Y . Gan, P.-W. Huang, E. Gil-Fuster, and P. Rebentrost. Con- cept learning of parameterized quantum models from limited measurements.arXiv:2408.05116, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  92. [98]

    Gao et al

    D. Gao et al. Establishing a new benchmark in quantum com- putational advantage with 105-qubit zuchongzhi 3.0 processor. Phys. Rev. Lett., 134:090601, 2025

    2025

  93. [99]

    Gao et al

    J. Gao et al. Experimental machine learning of quantum states. Phys. Rev. Lett., 120:240501, 2018

    2018

  94. [100]

    Gao and L.-M

    X. Gao and L.-M. Duan. Efficient representation of quantum many-body states with deep neural networks.Nature Comm., 8:662, 2017

    2017

  95. [101]

    X. Gao, M. Isoard, F. Sun, C. E. Lopetegui, Y . Xiang, V . Parigi, Q. He, and M. Walschaers. Correlation-pattern-based continu- ous variable entanglement detection through neural networks. Phys. Rev. Lett., 132:220202, 2024

    2024

  96. [102]

    Ge et al

    Y . Ge et al. Quantum circuit synthesis and compilation opti- mization: Overview and prospects.arXiv:2407.00736, 2024

    2024

  97. [103]

    Gebhart et al

    V . Gebhart et al. Learning quantum systems.Nature Rev. Phys., pages 1–16, 2023

    2023

  98. [104]

    Genois, J

    E. Genois, J. A. Gross, A. Di Paolo, N. J. Stevenson, G. Kool- stra, A. Hashim, I. Siddiqi, and A. Blais. Quantum-tailored machine-learning characterization of a superconducting qubit. PRX Quantum, 2:040355, 2021

    2021

  99. [105]

    Gil-Fuster, C

    E. Gil-Fuster, C. Gyurik, A. Perez-Salinas, and V . Dunjko. On the relation between trainability and dequantization of varia- tional quantum learning models. InThe Thirteenth Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    2025

  100. [106]

    M. L. Goh, M. Larocca, L. Cincio, M. Cerezo, and F. Sauvage. Lie-algebraic classical simulations for variational quantum computing.arXiv:2308.01432, 2023

    2023

  101. [107]

    Goodfellow, Y

    I. Goodfellow, Y . Bengio, and A. Courville.Deep learning. MIT press, 2016

    2016

  102. [108]

    Greplova, A

    E. Greplova, A. Valenti, G. Boschung, F. Sch ¨afer, N. L ¨orch, and S. D. Huber. Unsupervised identification of topologi- cal phase transitions using predictive models.New J. Phys., 22:045003, 2020

    2020

  103. [109]

    Grewal, V

    S. Grewal, V . Iyer, W. Kretschmer, and D. Liang. Efficient learning of quantum states prepared with few non-Clifford gates.arXiv:2305.13409, 2023

    2023

  104. [110]

    Guo and S

    Y . Guo and S. Yang. Quantum state tomography with locally purified density operators and local measurements.Commun. Phys., 7:322, 2024. 28

    2024

  105. [111]

    L. Gurvits. Classical deterministic complexity of edmonds’ problem and quantum entanglement. InProceedings of the thirty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 10–19, 2003

    2003

  106. [112]

    Gyurik and V

    C. Gyurik and V . Dunjko. On establishing learning separations between classical and quantum machine learning with classi- cal data.arXiv:2208.06339, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  107. [113]

    Gyurik and V

    C. Gyurik and V . Dunjko. Exponential separations between classical and quantum learners.arXiv:2306.16028, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  108. [114]

    Hangleiter, I

    D. Hangleiter, I. Roth, J. Fuksa, J. Eisert, and P. Roushan. Ro- bustly learning the Hamiltonian dynamics of a superconduct- ing quantum processor.Nature Comm., 15:9595, 2024

    2024

  109. [115]

    Harney, S

    C. Harney, S. Pirandola, A. Ferraro, and M. Paternostro. En- tanglement classification via neural network quantum states. New J. Phys., 22:045001, 2020

    2020

  110. [116]

    P. M. Harrington, E. J. Mueller, and K. W. Murch. Engi- neered dissipation for quantum information science.Nature Rev. Phys., 4:660–671, 2022

    2022

  111. [117]

    M. J. Hartmann and G. Carleo. Neural-network approach to dissipative quantum many-body dynamics.Phys. Rev. Lett., 122:250502, 2019

    2019

  112. [118]

    G. S. Hartnett, A. Barbosa, P. S. Mundada, M. Hush, M. J. Biercuk, and Y . Baum. Learning to rank quantum circuits for hardware-optimized performance enhancement.Quantum, 8:1542, 2024

    2024

  113. [119]

    Z. He, X. Zhang, C. Chen, Z. Huang, Y . Zhou, and H. Situ. A gnn-based predictor for quantum architecture search.Quan- tum Information Processing, 22:128, 2023

    2023

  114. [120]

    Hibat-Allah, M

    M. Hibat-Allah, M. Ganahl, L. E. Hayward, R. G. Melko, and J. Carrasquilla. Recurrent neural network wave functions. Phys. Rev. Res., 2:023358, 2020

    2020

  115. [121]

    G. E. Hinton. A practical guide to training restricted boltz- mann machines. InNeural networks: Tricks of the trade, pages 599–619. Springer, 2012

    2012

  116. [122]

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models.Adv. Neur. Inf. Proc. Sys., 33:6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  117. [123]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki. Quantum entanglement.Rev. Mod. Phys., 81:865–942, 2009

    2009

  118. [124]

    Hospedales, A

    T. Hospedales, A. Antoniou, P. Micaelli, and A. Storkey. Meta-learning in neural networks: A survey.IEEE Trans. Patt. Ana. Mach. Int., 44:5149–5169, 2021

    2021

  119. [125]

    Hothem, A

    D. Hothem, A. Miller, and T. Proctor. What is my quantum computer good for? quantum capability learning with physics- aware neural networks.arXiv:2406.05636, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  120. [126]

    Hothem, K

    D. Hothem, K. Young, T. Catanach, and T. Proctor. Learning a quantum computer’s capability.IEEE Trans. Quant. Eng., 2024

    2024

  121. [127]

    B. Hou, J. Wu, and D. Y . Qiu. Unsupervised representation learning of kohn–sham states and consequences for down- stream predictions of many-body effects.Nature Comm., 15:9481, 2024

    2024

  122. [128]

    H.-Y . Hu, A. Gu, S. Majumder, H. Ren, Y . Zhang, D. S. Wang, Y .-Z. You, Z. Minev, S. F. Yelin, and A. Seif. Demonstration of robust and efficient quantum property learning with shallow shadows.Nature Communications, 16(1):2943, 2025

    2025

  123. [129]

    H.-Y . Huang. Learning quantum states from their classical shadows.Nature Rev. Phys., 4:81–81, 2022

    2022

  124. [130]

    Huang, S

    H.-Y . Huang, S. Chen, and J. Preskill. Learning to predict arbitrary quantum processes.PRX Quantum, 4:040337, 2023

    2023

  125. [131]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y . Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill. Predicting many prop- erties of a quantum system from very few measurements.Na- ture Phys., 16:1050–1057, 2020

    2020

  126. [132]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y . Huang, R. Kueng, G. Torlai, V . V . Albert, and J. Preskill. Provably efficient machine learning for quantum many-body problems.Science, 377:eabk3333, 2022

    2022

  127. [133]

    Huang, Y

    H.-Y . Huang, Y . Liu, M. Broughton, I. Kim, A. Anshu, Z. Lan- dau, and J. R. McClean. Learning shallow quantum circuits. InProceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 1343–1351, 2024

    2024

  128. [134]

    Huang, Y

    J. Huang, Y . Zhu, G. Chiribella, and Y .-D. Wu. Sequence- model-guided measurement selection for quantum state learn- ing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.09891, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  129. [135]

    Huang, X

    R. Huang, X. Tan, and Q. Xu. Learning to learn varia- tional quantum algorithm.IEEE Trans. Neur. Net. Learn. Sys., 34:8430–8440, 2022

    2022

  130. [136]

    Huang, L

    Y . Huang, L. Che, C. Wei, F. Xu, X. Nie, J. Li, D. Lu, and T. Xin. Direct entanglement detection of quantum systems using machine learning.npjqi, 11:29, 2025

    2025

  131. [137]

    W. J. Huggins et al. Virtual distillation for quantum error mit- igation.Phys. Rev. X, 11:041036, 2021

    2021

  132. [138]

    Ippoliti and V

    M. Ippoliti and V . Khemani. Learnability transitions in mon- itored quantum dynamics via eavesdropper’s classical shad- ows.PRX Quantum, 5:020304, 2024

    2024

  133. [139]

    R. Iten, T. Metger, H. Wilming, L. del Rio, and R. Renner. Discovering physical concepts with neural networks.Phys. Rev. Lett., 124:010508, 2020

    2020

  134. [140]

    N. Jain, B. Coyle, E. Kashefi, and N. Kumar. Graph neural network initialisation of quantum approximate optimisation. Quantum, 6:861, 2022

    2022

  135. [141]

    Jameson, Z

    C. Jameson, Z. Qin, A. Goldar, M. B. Wakin, Z. Zhu, and Z. Gong. Optimal quantum state tomography with local infor- mationally complete measurements.arXiv:2408.07115

    arXiv

  136. [142]

    Jiang, S

    S. Jiang, S. Lu, and D.-L. Deng. Adversarial machine learning phases of matter.Quantum Frontiers, 2:15, 2023

    2023

  137. [143]

    Kaplan et al

    J. Kaplan et al. Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv:2001.08361, 2020

    2001 arXiv

  138. [144]

    D. Kaur, S. Uslu, K. J. Rittichier, and A. Durresi. Trustworthy artificial intelligence: a review.ACM Comp. Surv. (CSUR), 55:1–38, 2022

    2022

  139. [145]

    Khairy, R

    S. Khairy, R. Shaydulin, L. Cincio, Y . Alexeev, and P. Bal- aprakash. Learning to optimize variational quantum circuits to solve combinatorial problems. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 2367– 2375, 2020

    2020

  140. [146]

    C. Kim, K. D. Park, and J.-K. Rhee. Quantum error mitiga- tion with artificial neural network.IEEE Access, 8:188853– 188860, 2020

    2020

  141. [147]

    Kim et al

    H. Kim et al. Attention to quantum complexity. arXiv:2405.11632, 2024

    2024

  142. [148]

    H. Kim, A. Kumar, Y . Zhou, Y . Xu, R. Vasseur, and E.-A. Kim. Learning measurement-induced phase transitions using attention.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.15895, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  143. [149]

    A. D. King et al. Beyond-classical computation in quantum simulation.Science, page eado6285, 2025

    2025

  144. [150]

    Kookani, Y

    A. Kookani, Y . Mafi, P. Kazemikhah, H. Aghababa, K. Fouladi, and M. Barati. Xpookynet: advancement in quan- tum system analysis through convolutional neural networks for detection of entanglement.Quantum Mach. Intell., 6:50, 2024

    2024

  145. [151]

    Kottmann, P

    K. Kottmann, P. Huembeli, M. Lewenstein, and A. Ac ´ın. Unsupervised phase discovery with deep anomaly detection. Phys. Rev. Lett., 125:170603, 2020

    2020

  146. [152]

    Koutn `y et al

    D. Koutn `y et al. Deep learning of quantum entanglement from incomplete measurements.Sci. Adv., 9:eadd7131, 2023

    2023

  147. [153]

    Krawczyk, J

    M. Krawczyk, J. Pawłowski, M. M. Ma ´ska, and K. Roszak. Data-driven criteria for quantum correlations.Phys. Rev. A, 109:022405, 2024. 29

    2024

  148. [154]

    Krenn, J

    M. Krenn, J. Landgraf, T. Foesel, and F. Marquardt. Artificial intelligence and machine learning for quantum technologies. Phys. Rev. A, 107:010101, 2023

    2023

  149. [155]

    Landau and Y

    Z. Landau and Y . Liu. Learning quantum states prepared by shallow circuits in polynomial time.arXiv:2410.23618, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  150. [156]

    Landman, S

    J. Landman, S. Thabet, C. Dalyac, H. Mhiri, and E. Kashefi. Classically approximating variational quantum machine learn- ing with random Fourier features, 2022. arXiv:2210.13200v1

    2022 arXiv

  151. [157]

    Lange et al

    H. Lange et al. Transformer neural networks and quantum simulators: a hybrid approach for simulating strongly corre- lated systems.Quantum, 9:1675, 2025

    2025

  152. [158]

    Lange, M

    H. Lange, M. Kebriˇc, M. Buser, U. Schollw¨ock, F. Grusdt, and A. Bohrdt. Adaptive quantum state tomography with active learning.Quantum, 7:1129, 2023

    2023

  153. [159]

    Lange, A

    H. Lange, A. Van de Walle, A. Abedinnia, and A. Bohrdt. From architectures to applications: A review of neural quan- tum states.Quantum Sci. Tech., 2024

    2024

  154. [160]

    Lange, P

    M. Lange, P. Havstr ¨om, B. Srivastava, V . Bergentall, K. Ham- mar, O. Heuts, E. van Nieuwenburg, and M. Granath. Data- driven decoding of quantum error correcting codes using graph neural networks.arXiv:2307.01241, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  155. [161]

    LeCompte, F

    T. LeCompte, F. Qi, X. Yuan, N.-F. Tzeng, M. H. Najafi, and L. Peng. Machine-learning-based qubit allocation for error reduction in quantum circuits.IEEE Trans. Quant. Eng., 4:1– 14, 2023

    2023

  156. [162]

    J. Lee, J. Cho, and S. Kim. Q-maml: Quantum model- agnostic meta-learning for variational quantum algorithms. arXiv:2501.05906, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  157. [163]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. Oliviero, and A. Hamma. Learning t-doped stabilizer states.Quantum, 8:1361, 2024

    2024

  158. [164]

    Lewis, H.-Y

    L. Lewis, H.-Y . Huang, V . T. Tran, S. Lehner, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill. Improved machine learning algorithm for predict- ing ground state properties.Nature Comm., 15:895, 2024

    2024

  159. [165]

    Liang, J

    Z. Liang, J. Cheng, R. Yang, H. Ren, Z. Song, D. Wu, X. Qian, T. Li, and Y . Shi. Unleashing the potential of LLMs for quantum computing: A study in quantum architecture design. arXiv:2307.08191, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  160. [166]

    H. Liao, D. S. Wang, I. Sitdikov, C. Salcedo, A. Seif, and Z. K. Minev. Machine learning for practical quantum error mitigation.Nature Mach. Intell., pages 1–9, 2024

    2024

  161. [167]

    M. Liao, Y . Zhu, G. Chiribella, and Y . Yang. Noise-agnostic quantum error mitigation with data augmented neural models. npjqi, 11:8, 2025

    2025

  162. [168]

    X. Lin, Z. Chen, and Z. Wei. Quantifying quantum entangle- ment via a hybrid quantum-classical machine learning frame- work.Phys. Rev. A, 107:062409, 2023

    2023

  163. [169]

    Liu and E

    Y .-H. Liu and E. P. L. van Nieuwenburg. Discriminative co- operative networks for detecting phase transitions.Phys. Rev. Lett., 120:176401, 2018

    2018

  164. [170]

    J. Lu, D. Batra, D. Parikh, and S. Lee. Vilbert: Pretraining task-agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and- language tasks.Adv. Neur. Inf. Proc. Sys., 32, 2019

    2019

  165. [171]

    D. Luo, J. Shen, R. Dangovski, and M. Soljacic. Quack: accel- erating gradient-based quantum optimization with koopman operator learning.Adv. Neur. Inf. Proc. Sys., 36:25662–25692, 2023

    2023

  166. [172]

    Luo, J.-M

    Y .-J. Luo, J.-M. Liu, and C. Zhang. Detecting genuine mul- tipartite entanglement via machine learning.Phys. Rev. A, 108:052424, 2023

    2023

  167. [173]

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, K. H. Leung, X. Lv, and M. Endres. A tweezer array with 6100 highly coherent atomic qubits.arXiv:2403.12021, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  168. [174]

    Manovitz et al

    T. Manovitz et al. Quantum coarsening and collective dynam- ics on a programmable simulator.Nature, 638:86–92, 2025

    2025

  169. [175]

    R. G. Melko and J. Carrasquilla. Language models for quan- tum simulation.Nature Comp. Sci., 4:11–18, 2024

    2024

  170. [176]

    A. F. Mello, G. Lami, and M. Collura. Retrieving nonstabiliz- erness with neural networks.Phys. Rev. A, 111:012440, 2025

    2025

  171. [177]

    Miles et al

    C. Miles et al. Correlator convolutional neural networks as an interpretable architecture for image-like quantum matter data. Nature Comm., 12:3905, 2021

    2021

  172. [178]

    Miles et al

    C. Miles et al. Machine learning discovery of new phases in programmable quantum simulator snapshots.Phys. Rev. Res., 5:013026, 2023

    2023

  173. [179]

    Minami, K

    S. Minami, K. Nakaji, Y . Suzuki, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and T. Kadowaki. Generative quantum combinatorial optimization by means of a novel conditional generative quantum eigen- solver.arXiv:2501.16986, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  174. [180]

    Mohri, A

    M. Mohri, A. Rostamizadeh, and A. Talwalkar.Foundations of machine learning. MIT press, 2018

    2018

  175. [181]

    Mohseni, T

    N. Mohseni, T. F ¨osel, L. Guo, C. Navarrete-Benlloch, and F. Marquardt. Deep learning of quantum many-body dynamics via random driving.Quantum, 6:714, 2022

    2022

  176. [182]

    Mohseni, F

    N. Mohseni, F. Marquardt, and P. Schmidt. Transfer learn- ing in predicting quantum many-body dynamics: from physi- cal observables to entanglement entropy.Quantum Sci. Tech., 2025

    2025

  177. [183]

    Mohseni, J

    N. Mohseni, J. Shi, T. Byrnes, and M. J. Hartmann. Deep learning of many-body observables and quantum information scrambling.Quantum, 8:1417, 2024

    2024

  178. [184]

    Molteni, C

    R. Molteni, C. Gyurik, and V . Dunjko. Exponential quan- tum advantages in learning quantum observables from clas- sical data.arXiv:2405.02027, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  179. [185]

    Morawetz, I

    S. Morawetz, I. J. S. De Vlugt, J. Carrasquilla, and R. G. Melko. U(1)-symmetric recurrent neural networks for quan- tum state reconstruction.Phys. Rev. A, 104:012401, 2021

    2021

  180. [186]

    M. S. Moss, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, G. Semeghini, A. Bohrdt, M. D. Lukin, and R. G. Melko. Enhancing variational Monte Carlo simulations using a programmable quantum simulator. Phys. Rev. A, 109:032410, 2024

    2024

  181. [187]

    Nakaji et al

    K. Nakaji et al. The generative quantum eigensolver (GQE) and its application for ground state search.arXiv:2401.09253, 2024

    2024

  182. [188]

    Nandy, M

    S. Nandy, M. Schmitt, M. Bukov, and Z. Lenar ˇciˇc. Recon- structing effective Hamiltonians from nonequilibrium thermal and prethermal steady states.Phys. Rev. Res., 6:023160, 2024

    2024

  183. [189]

    N. A. Nemkov, E. O. Kiktenko, and A. K. Fedorov. Fourier expansion in variational quantum algorithms.Phys. Rev. A, 108, 2023

    2023

  184. [190]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang.Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  185. [191]

    M. Y . Niu, A. M. Dai, L. Li, A. Odena, Z. Zhao, V . Smelyan- skyi, H. Neven, and S. Boixo. Learnability and complexity of quantum samples.arXiv:2010.11983, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  186. [192]

    Ohliger, V

    M. Ohliger, V . Nesme, and J. Eisert. Efficient and feasible state tomography of quantum many-body systems.New J. Phys., 15:015024, 2013

    2013

  187. [193]

    Onorati, C

    E. Onorati, C. Rouz ´e, D. S. Franc ¸a, and J. D. Watson. Prov- ably efficient learning of phases of matter via dissipative evo- lutions.arXiv:2311.07506, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  188. [194]

    R. Or ´us. Tensor networks for complex quantum systems.Na- ture Rev. Phys., 1:538–550, 2019

    2019

  189. [195]

    Pawłowski and M

    J. Pawłowski and M. Krawczyk. Identification of quantum en- tanglement with siamese convolutional neural networks and semisupervised learning.Phys. Rev. Applied, 22:014068, 2024

    2024

  190. [196]

    Pouyanfar et al

    S. Pouyanfar et al. A survey on deep learning: Algorithms, techniques, and applications.ACM Comp. Surv. (CSUR), 30 51:1–36, 2018

    2018

  191. [197]

    Preskill

    J. Preskill. Beyond nisq: The megaquop machine. arXiv:2502.17368, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  192. [198]

    Proctor, K

    T. Proctor, K. Young, A. D. Baczewski, and R. Blume-Kohout. Benchmarking quantum computers.Nature Rev. Phys., 7:1– 14, 2025

    2025

  193. [199]

    Y . Qian, Y . Du, Z. He, M.-H. Hsieh, and D. Tao. Multimodal deep representation learning for quantum cross-platform veri- fication.Phys. Rev. Lett., 133:130601, 2024

    2024

  194. [200]

    Y . Qian, X. Wang, Y . Du, Y . Luo, and D. Tao. Mg- net: Learn to customize qaoa with circuit depth awareness. arXiv:2409.18692, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  195. [201]

    H. Qin, L. Che, C. Wei, F. Xu, Y . Huang, and T. Xin. Ex- perimental direct quantum fidelity learning via a data-driven approach.Phys. Rev. Lett., 132:190801, 2024

    2024

  196. [202]

    Y . Quek, S. Fort, and H. K. Ng. Adaptive quantum state to- mography with neural networks.npjqi, 7:105, 2021

    2021

  197. [203]

    Y . Quek, D. S. Franca, S. Khatri, J. J. Meyer, and J. Eisert. Exponentially tighter bounds on limitations of quantum error mitigation.Nature Phys., 20:1648–1658, 2024

    2024

  198. [204]

    Radford, K

    A. Radford, K. Narasimhan, T. Salimans, I. Sutskever, et al. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. 2018

    2018

  199. [205]

    Radford, J

    A. Radford, J. Wu, R. Child, D. Luan, D. Amodei, I. Sutskever, et al. Language models are unsupervised mul- titask learners.OpenAI blog, 1:9, 2019

    2019

  200. [206]

    Rahimi and B

    A. Rahimi and B. Recht. Random features for large-scale ker- nel machines.Adv. Neur. Inf. Proc. Sys., 20, 2007

    2007

  201. [208]

    Rieger, M

    M. Rieger, M. Reh, and M. G ¨arttner. Sample-efficient esti- mation of entanglement entropy through supervised learning. Phys. Rev. A, 109:012403, 2024

    2024

  202. [209]

    Rocchetto

    A. Rocchetto. Stabiliser states are efficiently PAC-learnable. arXiv:1705.00345, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  203. [210]

    J. Roik, K. Bartkiewicz, A. ˇCernoch, and K. Lemr. Entangle- ment quantification from collective measurements processed by machine learning.Phys. Lett. A, 446:128270, 2022

    2022

  204. [211]

    J. Roik, K. Bartkiewicz, A. ˇCernoch, and K. Lemr. Accuracy of entanglement detection via artificial neural networks and human-designed entanglement witnesses.Phys. Rev. Appl., 15:054006, 2021

    2021

  205. [212]

    Romera-Paredes et al

    B. Romera-Paredes et al. Mathematical discoveries from pro- gram search with large language models.Nature, 625:468– 475, 2024

    2024

  206. [213]

    Rouz ´e, D

    C. Rouz ´e, D. Stilck Franc ¸a, E. Onorati, and J. D. Watson. Ef- ficient learning of ground and thermal states within phases of matter.Nature Comm., 15:7755, 2024

    2024

  207. [214]

    M. S. Rudolph, E. Fontana, Z. Holmes, and L. Cincio. Clas- sical surrogate simulation of quantum systems with lowesa. arXiv:2308.09109, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  208. [215]

    F. J. Ruiz et al. Quantum circuit optimization with alphatensor. Nature Mach. Intell., pages 1–12, 2025

    2025

  209. [216]

    S. H. Sack and D. J. Egger. Large-scale quantum approximate optimization on nonplanar graphs with machine learning noise mitigation.Phys. Rev. Res., 6:013223, 2024

    2024

  210. [217]

    Sadoune, G

    N. Sadoune, G. Giudici, K. Liu, and L. Pollet. Unsuper- vised interpretable learning of phases from many-qubit sys- tems.Phys. Rev. Res., 5:013082, 2023

    2023

  211. [218]

    Samek, T

    W. Samek, T. Wiegand, and K.-R. M ¨uller. Explainable artifi- cial intelligence: Understanding, visualizing and interpreting deep learning models.arXiv:1708.08296, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  212. [219]

    Sarzynska-Wawer, A

    J. Sarzynska-Wawer, A. Wawer, A. Pawlak, J. Szymanowska, I. Stefaniak, M. Jarkiewicz, and L. Okruszek. Detecting for- mal thought disorder by deep contextualized word representa- tions.Psychiatry Research, 304:114135, 2021

    2021

  213. [220]

    Sauvage, S

    F. Sauvage, S. Sim, A. A. Kunitsa, W. A. Simon, M. Mauri, and A. Perdomo-Ortiz. Flip: A flexible ini- tializer for arbitrarily-sized parametrized quantum circuits. arXiv:2103.08572, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  214. [221]

    Sch ¨afer and N

    F. Sch ¨afer and N. L¨orch. Vector field divergence of predictive model output as indication of phase transitions.Phys. Rev. E, 99:062107, 2019

    2019

  215. [222]

    Schindler, N

    F. Schindler, N. Regnault, and T. Neupert. Probing many-body localization with neural networks.Phys. Rev. B, 95:245134, 2017

    2017

  216. [223]

    Schmale, M

    T. Schmale, M. Reh, and M. G ¨arttner. Efficient quantum state tomography with convolutional neural networks.npjqi, 8:115, 2022

    2022

  217. [224]

    Schmitt and Z

    M. Schmitt and Z. Lenar ˇciˇc. From observations to complexity of quantum states via unsupervised learning.Phys. Rev. B, 106:L041110, 2022

    2022

  218. [225]

    Sch ¨olkopf and A

    B. Sch ¨olkopf and A. J. Smola.Learning with kernels: sup- port vector machines, regularization, optimization, and be- yond. MIT press, 2002

    2002

  219. [226]

    F. J. Schreiber, J. Eisert, and J. J. Meyer. Classical surrogates for quantum learning models.Phys. Rev. Lett., 131:100803, 2023

    2023

  220. [227]

    Schuld, R

    M. Schuld, R. Sweke, and J. J. Meyer. Effect of data encod- ing on the expressive power of variational quantum-machine- learning models.Phys. Rev. A, 103, 2021

    2021

  221. [228]

    Schuster, J

    T. Schuster, J. Haferkamp, and H.-Y . Huang. Random uni- taries in extremely low depth.Science, 389(6755):92–96, 2025

    2025

  222. [229]

    R. A. Servedio and S. J. Gortler. Equivalences and separations between quantum and classical learnability.SIAM Journal on Computing, 33:1067–1092, 2004

    2004

  223. [230]

    Sharir, Y

    O. Sharir, Y . Levine, N. Wies, G. Carleo, and A. Shashua. Deep autoregressive models for the efficient variational sim- ulation of many-body quantum systems.Phys. Rev. Lett., 124:020503, 2020

    2020

  224. [231]

    Sharir, A

    O. Sharir, A. Shashua, and G. Carleo. Neural tensor contrac- tions and the expressive power of deep neural quantum states. Phys. Rev. B, 106:205136, 2022

    2022

  225. [232]

    A. L. Shaw et al. Benchmarking highly entangled states on a 60-atom analogue quantum simulator.Nature, 628:71–77, 2024

    2024

  226. [233]

    Sinibaldi, A

    A. Sinibaldi, A. F. Mello, M. Collura, and G. Carleo. Non- stabilizerness of neural quantum states.arXiv:2502.09725, 2025

    2025

  227. [234]

    Skinner, J

    B. Skinner, J. Ruhman, and A. Nahum. Measurement-induced phase transitions in the dynamics of entanglement.Phys. Rev. X, 9:031009, 2019

    2019

  228. [235]

    ˇSm´ıd and R

    ˇS. ˇSm´ıd and R. Bondesan. Accurate learning of equivariant quantum systems from a single ground state. arXiv:2405.12309, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  229. [236]

    ˇSm´ıd and R

    ˇS. ˇSm´ıd and R. Bondesan. Efficient learning of long-range and equivariant quantum systems.Quantum, 9:1597, 2025

    2025

  230. [237]

    A. W. R. Smith, J. Gray, and M. S. Kim. Efficient quan- tum state sample tomography with basis-dependent neural net- works.PRX Quantum, 2:020348, 2021

    2021

  231. [238]

    Y . Song, J. Sohl-Dickstein, D. P. Kingma, A. Kumar, S. Er- mon, and B. Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. In9th International Confer- ence on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview....

    2021

  232. [239]

    Strikis, D

    A. Strikis, D. Qin, Y . Chen, S. C. Benjamin, and Y . Li. Learning-based quantum error mitigation.PRX Quantum, 2:040330, 2021

    2021

  233. [240]

    Sweke, M

    R. Sweke, M. S. Kesselring, E. P. L. van Nieuwenburg, and J. Eisert. Reinforcement learning decoders for fault-tolerant quantum computation.Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol., 2:025005, 2021

    2021

  234. [241]

    Sweke, E

    R. Sweke, E. Recio-Armengol, S. Jerbi, E. Gil-Fuster, B. Fuller, J. Eisert, and J. J. Meyer. Potential and limitations of random Fourier features for dequantizing quantum machine learning.Quantum, 9:1640, 2025

    2025

  235. [242]

    Taghadomi, A

    N. Taghadomi, A. Mani, A. Fahim, A. Bakoui, and M. S. Salami. Effective detection of quantum discord by using con- volutional neural networks.arXiv:2401.07405, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  236. [243]

    Takagi, S

    R. Takagi, S. Endo, S. Minagawa, and M. Gu. Fundamental limits of quantum error mitigation.npj Quant. Inf., 8:114,

  237. [244]

    Y . Tang, M. Long, and J. Yan. Quadim: A conditional dif- fusion model for quantum state property estimation. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2025

    2025

  238. [245]

    Y . Tang, H. Xiong, N. Yang, T. Xiao, and J. Yan. Towards llm4qpe: Unsupervised pretraining of quantum property esti- mation and a benchmark. InThe Twelfth International Confer- ence on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Aus- tria, May 7-11, 2024. OpenReview.net, 2024

    2024

  239. [246]

    Y . Tang, N. Yang, M. Long, and J. Yan. Ssl4q: semi- supervised learning of quantum data with application to quan- tum state classification. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML’24, 2024

    2024

  240. [247]

    Temme, S

    K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta. Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits.Phys. Rev. Lett., 119:180509, 2017

    2017

  241. [248]

    Thabet, L

    S. Thabet, L. Monbroussou, E. Z. Mamon, and J. Landman. When quantum and classical models disagree: Learning be- yond minimum norm least square.arXiv:2411.04940, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  242. [249]

    Tian et al

    J. Tian et al. Recent advances for quantum neural networks in generative learning.arXiv:2206.03066, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  243. [250]

    Tilly et al

    J. Tilly et al. The variational quantum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices.Phys. Rep., 986:1–128, 2022

    2022

  244. [251]

    E. S. Tiunov, V . Tiunova, A. E. Ulanov, A. Lvovsky, and A. K. Fedorov. Experimental quantum homodyne tomography via machine learning.Optica, 7:448–454, 2020

    2020

  245. [252]

    Torlai, G

    G. Torlai, G. Mazzola, J. Carrasquilla, M. Troyer, R. Melko, and G. Carleo. Neural-network quantum state tomography. Nature Phys., 14:447–450, 2018

    2018

  246. [253]

    Vadali, R

    A. Vadali, R. Kshirsagar, P. Shyamsundar, and G. N. Perdue. Quantum circuit fidelity estimation using machine learning. Quantum Mach. Intell., 6:1, 2024

    2024

  247. [254]

    Valenti, G

    A. Valenti, G. Jin, J. L ´eonard, S. D. Huber, and E. Gre- plova. Scalable hamiltonian learning for large-scale out-of- equilibrium quantum dynamics.Phys. Rev. A, 105:023302, 2022

    2022

  248. [255]

    Valenti, E

    A. Valenti, E. van Nieuwenburg, S. Huber, and E. Greplova. Hamiltonian learning for quantum error correction.Phys. Rev. Res., 1:033092, 2019

    2019

  249. [256]

    Van Damme et al

    J. Van Damme et al. Advanced cmos manufacturing of su- perconducting qubits on 300 mm wafers.Nature, 634:74–79, 2024

    2024

  250. [257]

    Van der Maaten and G

    L. Van der Maaten and G. Hinton. Visualizing data using t-sne. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 9, 2008

    2008

  251. [258]

    J. E. Van Engelen and H. H. Hoos. A survey on semi- supervised learning.Machine learning, 109:373–440, 2020

    2020

  252. [259]

    E. P. Van Nieuwenburg, Y .-H. Liu, and S. D. Huber. Learning phase transitions by confusion.Nature Phys., 13:435, 2017

    2017

  253. [260]

    B. M. Varbanov, M. Serra-Peralta, D. Byfield, and B. M. Ter- hal. Neural network decoder for near-term surface-code ex- periments.Phys. Rev. Res., 7:013029, 2025

    2025

  254. [261]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin. Attention is all you need.Adv. Neur. Inf. Proc. Sys., 30, 2017

    2017

  255. [262]

    Venturella, J

    C. Venturella, J. Li, C. Hillenbrand, X. Leyva Peralta, J. Liu, and T. Zhu. Unified deep learning framework for many-body quantum chemistry via green’s functions.Nature Comp. Sci., pages 1–12, 2025

    2025

  256. [263]

    Verdon, M

    G. Verdon, M. Broughton, J. R. McClean, K. J. Sung, R. Bab- bush, Z. Jiang, H. Neven, and M. Mohseni. Learning to learn with quantum neural networks via classical neural networks. arXiv:1907.05415, 2019

    1907 arXiv

  257. [264]

    Vermersch, M

    B. Vermersch, M. Ljubotina, J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, M. Ser- byn, and L. Piroli. Many-body entropies and entanglement from polynomially many local measurements.Phys. Rev. X, 14:031035, 2024

    2024

  258. [265]

    J. G. Vidal and D. O. Theis. Input redundancy for parameter- ized quantum circuits, 2020

    2020

  259. [266]

    Walln ¨ofer, A

    J. Walln ¨ofer, A. A. Melnikov, W. D ¨ur, and H. J. Briegel. Machine learning for long-distance quantum communication. PRX Quantum, 1:010301, 2020

    2020

  260. [267]

    C. Wang, H. Zhai, and Y .-Z. You. Emergent schr¨odinger equa- tion in an introspective machine learning architecture.Science Bulletin, 64(17):1228–1233, 2019

    2019

  261. [268]

    Wang et al

    H. Wang et al. Quest: Graph transformer for quantum circuit reliability estimation.arXiv:2210.16724, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  262. [269]

    Wang et al

    H. Wang et al. Scientific discovery in the age of artificial in- telligence.Nature, 620:47–60, 2023

    2023

  263. [270]

    H. Wang, P. Liu, K. Shao, D. Li, J. Gu, D. Z. Pan, Y . Ding, and S. Han. Transformer-QEC: quantum error correction code decoding with transferable transformers.arXiv:2311.16082, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  264. [271]

    H. Wang, M. Weber, J. Izaac, and C. Y .-Y . Lin. Predict- ing properties of quantum systems with conditional generative models.arXiv:2211.16943, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  265. [272]

    Wang et al

    J. Wang et al. Experimental quantum hamiltonian learning. Nature Phys., 13:551–555, 2017

    2017

  266. [273]

    L. Wang. Discovering phase transitions with unsupervised learning.Phys. Rev. B, 94:195105, 2016

    2016

  267. [274]

    L. Wang, X. Zhang, H. Su, and J. Zhu. A comprehensive sur- vey of continual learning: Theory, method and application. IEEE Trans. Patt. Ana. Mach. Int., 2024

    2024

  268. [275]

    Wanner, L

    M. Wanner, L. Lewis, C. Bhattacharyya, D. Dubhashi, and A. Gheorghiu. Predicting ground state properties: Constant sample complexity and deep learning algorithms. arXiv:2405.18489, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  269. [276]

    S. J. Wetzel. Unsupervised learning of phase transitions: From principal component analysis to variational autoen- coders.Phys. Rev. E, 96:022140, 2017

    2017

  270. [277]

    S. J. Wetzel, S. Ha, R. Iten, M. Klopotek, and Z. Liu. Interpretable machine learning in physics: A review. arXiv:2503.23616, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  271. [278]

    Wiebe, C

    N. Wiebe, C. Granade, C. Ferrie, and D. G. Cory. Hamiltonian learning and certification using quantum resources.Phys. Rev. Lett., 112:190501, 2014

    2014

  272. [279]

    D. F. Wise, J. J. Morton, and S. Dhomkar. Using deep learning to understand and mitigate the qubit noise environment.PRX Quantum, 2:010316, 2021

    2021

  273. [280]

    Wu et al

    D. Wu et al. Variational benchmarks for quantum many-body problems.Science, 386:296–301, 2024. 32

    2024

  274. [281]

    D. Wu, L. Wang, and P. Zhang. Solving statistical mechanics using variational autoregressive networks.Phys. Rev. Lett., 122:080602, 2019

    2019

  275. [282]

    Y .-D. Wu, Y . Zhu, G. Bai, Y . Wang, and G. Chiribella. Quan- tum similarity testing with convolutional neural networks. Phys. Rev. Lett., 130:210601, 2023

    2023

  276. [283]

    Y .-D. Wu, Y . Zhu, Y . Wang, and G. Chiribella. Learning quan- tum properties from short-range correlations using multi-task networks.Nature Comm., 15, 2024

    2024

  277. [284]

    T. Xiao, J. Huang, H. Li, J. Fan, and G. Zeng. Intelligent cer- tification for quantum simulators via machine learning.npjqi, 8:138, 2022

    2022

  278. [285]

    Xu et al

    S. Xu et al. Non-abelian braiding of fibonacci anyons with a superconducting processor.Nature Phys., 20:1469–1475, 2024

    2024

  279. [286]

    L. Yang, Z. Zhang, Y . Song, S. Hong, R. Xu, Y . Zhao, W. Zhang, B. Cui, and M.-H. Yang. Diffusion models: A com- prehensive survey of methods and applications.ACM Comput- ing Surveys, 56:1–39, 2023

    2023

  280. [287]

    R. Yang, Y . Gu, Z. Wang, Y . Liang, and T. Li. QCircuitNet: A large-scale hierarchical dataset for quantum algorithm design. arXiv:2410.07961, 2024

    2024

  281. [288]

    T.-H. Yang, M. Soleimanifar, T. Bergamaschi, and J. Preskill. When can classical neural networks represent quantum states? arXiv:2410.23152, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  282. [289]

    Yao and Y .-Z

    J. Yao and Y .-Z. You. Shadowgpt: Learning to solve quan- tum many-body problems from randomized measurements. arXiv:2411.03285, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  283. [290]

    Zeier and T

    R. Zeier and T. Schulte-Herbr ¨uggen. Symmetry principles in quantum systems theory.J. Math. Phys., 52, 2011

    2011

  284. [291]

    R. Zen, L. My, R. Tan, F. H´ebert, M. Gattobigio, C. Miniatura, D. Poletti, and S. Bressan. Transfer learning for scalability of neural-network quantum states.Phys. Rev. E, 101:053301, 2020

    2020

  285. [292]

    Zhang et al

    H. Zhang et al. Experimental demonstration of adversar- ial examples in learning topological phases.Nature Comm., 13:4993, 2022

    2022

  286. [293]

    Zhang, C.-Y

    S.-X. Zhang, C.-Y . Hsieh, S. Zhang, and H. Yao. Neural pre- dictor based quantum architecture search.Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol., 2:045027, 2021

    2021

  287. [294]

    Zhang, M

    X. Zhang, M. Luo, Z. Wen, Q. Feng, S. Pang, W. Luo, and X. Zhou. Direct fidelity estimation of quantum states using machine learning.Phys. Rev. Lett., 127:130503, 2021

    2021

  288. [295]

    Zhang, X

    Y . Zhang, X. Zhang, J. Sun, H. Lin, Y . Huang, D. Lv, and X. Yuan. Fault-tolerant quantum algorithms for quantum molecular systems: A survey.arXiv:2502.02139, 2025

    2025

  289. [296]

    Zhang and M

    Y .-H. Zhang and M. Di Ventra. Transformer quantum state: A multipurpose model for quantum many-body problems.Phys. Rev. B, 107:075147, 2023

    2023

  290. [297]

    Zhang and Y .-Z

    Z. Zhang and Y .-Z. You. Observing Schr ¨odinger’s cat with artificial intelligence: emergent classicality from information bottleneck.Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol., 5:015051, 2024

    2024

  291. [298]

    L. Zhao, N. Guo, M.-X. Luo, and P. Rebentrost. Prov- able learning of quantum states with graphical models. arXiv:2309.09235, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  292. [300]

    Zhong, C

    L. Zhong, C. Guo, and X. Wang. Quantum state tomography inspired by language modeling.arXiv:2212.04940, 2022

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.