pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.02834 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-03 · 🪐 quant-ph

Identification of quantum generative circuits with parallel quantum neural network

Zheping Wu , Xiaopeng Huang , Hengyue Jia , Haobin Shi , Wei-Wei Zhang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 17:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum neural networksquantum generative modelscircuit identificationQDDPMparallel quantum embeddingquantum data classificationW-like statesmutually unbiased measurements
0
0 comments X

The pith

A parallel quantum neural network identifies which of eight generative circuits produced a given set of W-like states, even when all eight were trained to the same target distribution.

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

The paper introduces ParaQuanNet, a quantum neural network that classifies output samples from quantum generative circuits. Eight separate QDDPM circuits are each trained to produce W-like states, yet their outputs retain enough statistical differences for the network to label the source circuit with 99.5 percent accuracy. The key design is a parallel quantum embedding unit that lets the quantum kernel process multiple receptive fields at once, combined with mutually unbiased measurements. The same architecture also classifies classical datasets and maintains performance when the data or the underlying circuits contain noise. The result shows that quantum generative models can carry detectable circuit-specific signatures beyond the intended target distribution.

Core claim

ParaQuanNet classifies the output data of eight different QDDPM circuits, all trained to generate the same family of W-like states, at 99.5 percent accuracy. The network achieves this by embedding the quantum data through a parallel quantum embedding unit that processes receptive fields simultaneously and by incorporating mutually unbiased measurements. The method remains effective on noisy samples and on classical data sets, demonstrating that subtle differences in circuit implementation survive training to a common target.

What carries the argument

The parallel quantum embedding unit (PQEU), which routes the quantum kernel across all receptive fields of the input data in a single parallel pass.

If this is right

  • Quantum circuits that realize the same generative task can still be told apart by examining their output distributions.
  • Parallel embedding of quantum data improves both speed and accuracy of quantum neural-network classifiers.
  • Mutually unbiased measurements provide a measurable performance gain when added to quantum neural networks.
  • The approach works on both quantum and classical data and tolerates realistic levels of noise.
  • Circuit identification becomes feasible without direct access to the circuit description itself.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same technique could be used to verify whether a deployed quantum device matches its claimed design.
  • Extending the method to larger numbers of circuits or higher-dimensional states would test how many independent statistical signatures can be resolved.
  • If the distinguishability persists under stronger noise models, it could affect strategies for quantum intellectual-property protection.
  • The retained circuit signatures suggest that generative training does not fully erase implementation details, which may influence the design of quantum privacy protocols.

Load-bearing premise

Even after training to the same target distribution, the eight QDDPM circuits still produce output statistics that are distinguishable by a quantum neural network.

What would settle it

Train ParaQuanNet on fresh samples from the eight circuits and obtain classification accuracy no higher than 12.5 percent on held-out data; that result would show the claimed distinguishability does not exist.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.02834 by Haobin Shi, Hengyue Jia, Wei-Wei Zhang, Xiaopeng Huang, Zheping Wu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Sketch of our scheme for quantum identification of quantum AI-generated data. Top: the quantum data generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The eight structures of quantum W-like states gen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Top: Convention quantum neural network data flow. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Sketch of our two proposed measurement modes: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The classification accuracy for the eight classes of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The robustness of our ParaQuanNet to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Classification accuracy under (a) single-qubit gate noise, (b) two-qubit gate noise and (c) both single- and two-qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Classification accuracy under finite-shot measure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Classification accuracy under measurement readout [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The rapid emergence of quantum technology has raised new challenges in distinguishing various quantum circuits of similar functions. In this work, we propose parallel quantum embedding neural network (ParaQuanNet) for the efficient identification of quantum generative circuits via classifications of the corresponding output data. Specifically, we generated W-like states with eight generative quantum circuits realizing the generative quantum denoising diffusion probabilistic models (QDDPM). Our ParaQuanNet can classify these eight classes of generated quantum data with an accuracy of {$99.5\%$}, even though all of them are trained to generate the same types of quantum data. With a novel design of parallel quantum embedding unit (PQEU) in our neural networks, our ParaQuanNet enables the quantum kernel circuit parallelly process all the receptive fields of quantum data, which empowers the quantum data processing efficiency. We also integrate the mutually unbiased measurements into our ParaQuanNet and further improve its performance. We apply our ParaQuanNet on the classification of classical data sets and demonstrate a good performance of quantum neural networks on these tasks. Our approach demonstrates good robustness to noisy data and the circuit-level noise with a Python realization in a classical GPU. Our results highlight ParaQuanNet as a scalable and effective framework for quantum circuits identification, contributing to the broader development of quantum machine intelligence.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes ParaQuanNet, a parallel quantum embedding neural network, to identify eight distinct QDDPM generative circuits by classifying their output quantum states, all of which are trained to produce W-like states. It reports 99.5% classification accuracy using a novel parallel quantum embedding unit (PQEU) and mutually unbiased measurements, claims robustness to noise, and shows results on classical datasets as well.

Significance. If the central empirical result holds after verification that the eight circuits converge to statistically identical output distributions, the work would offer a practical ML-based method for distinguishing functionally similar quantum circuits via their generated data. The parallel embedding design and integration of mutually unbiased measurements represent concrete engineering contributions to quantum neural network efficiency.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (results): The claim that ParaQuanNet distinguishes the eight circuits at 99.5% accuracy even though they target the same distribution is load-bearing for the identification interpretation. No inter-model metrics (fidelity, MMD, or KL divergence between the eight trained QDDPMs) are reported to confirm convergence to a common distribution within sampling noise. Without these, the accuracy may exploit residual approximation differences rather than circuit-specific structure.
  2. [§2 and §4] §2 (methods) and §4 (experiments): The abstract states high classification accuracy but supplies no information on training procedure, validation splits, number of runs, error bars, or statistical tests. These omissions prevent evaluation of whether the reported performance is robust or reproducible.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Figure captions and §3] Figure captions and §3: Clarify whether the reported accuracy is on held-out test data or training data, and specify the noise model used for the circuit-level noise experiments.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will make the necessary revisions to enhance the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (results): The claim that ParaQuanNet distinguishes the eight circuits at 99.5% accuracy even though they target the same distribution is load-bearing for the identification interpretation. No inter-model metrics (fidelity, MMD, or KL divergence between the eight trained QDDPMs) are reported to confirm convergence to a common distribution within sampling noise. Without these, the accuracy may exploit residual approximation differences rather than circuit-specific structure.

    Authors: We concur that verifying the convergence of the eight QDDPMs to a common distribution is crucial for the validity of our identification claim. Although the models are trained with the same target W-like states, we did not previously report quantitative inter-model comparisons. In the revised manuscript, we will add these metrics in §3, including pairwise fidelities, MMD distances, and KL divergences computed from the generated samples. This will confirm that the distributions are statistically similar within sampling noise, supporting that the classification accuracy stems from circuit-specific features. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§2 and §4] §2 (methods) and §4 (experiments): The abstract states high classification accuracy but supplies no information on training procedure, validation splits, number of runs, error bars, or statistical tests. These omissions prevent evaluation of whether the reported performance is robust or reproducible.

    Authors: We agree that additional details are required to demonstrate reproducibility. In the revised manuscript, we will provide a full description of the training procedure in §2, including hyperparameters and optimization details. In §4, we will specify the data splits, number of runs (10 independent trials), include error bars, and report statistical tests to confirm the robustness of the 99.5% accuracy result. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical classification result stands on measured performance

full rationale

The paper reports an empirical classification accuracy of 99.5% for ParaQuanNet on output samples from eight separately trained QDDPM circuits that target the same W-like states. This accuracy is obtained by training the network on labeled generated data and evaluating on held-out samples; it is not obtained by solving an equation that reduces to a fitted parameter or by renaming an input distribution. The architectural description of the parallel quantum embedding unit and the use of mutually unbiased measurements are design choices whose performance is then measured, not presupposed. No derivation chain, uniqueness theorem, or self-citation is invoked to force the reported accuracy. The skeptic concern about verifying distributional identity between the eight generators is a question of experimental controls, not a circularity in the derivation itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. The approach implicitly relies on standard quantum embedding assumptions common to quantum machine learning.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5534 in / 1050 out tokens · 67047 ms · 2026-05-15T17:20:13.941390+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Specifically, in our demonstrations we design 8 various generative circuits as shown in Fig

    We define the success rate of generations is P W succ =P10000000 +P 01000000 +P00100000 +P 00010000 +P00001000 +P 00000100 +P00000010 +P 00000001 (2) HereP 00000000,P 111111111,P 10000000,P 01000000,P 00100000, P00010000,P 00001000,P 00000100,P 00000010 andP 00000001 are the probabilities of the generated states project to the corresponding computation ba...

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    to show the efficiency of our approach as shown in Table. II . E. experimental settings Our experimental model’s hyperparameters were op- timized through systematic grid searches and quantum hardware-aware tuning. Key configurations are shown in Table. III. The loss function in our experiments is the cross-entropy loss withL2 regularization: L=− CX c=1 yc...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Satellite-to-ground quantum key distribution.Nature, 549(7670):43–47, 2017

    Sheng-Kai Liao, Wen-Qi Cai, Wei-Yue Liu, Liang Zhang, Yang Li, Ji-Gang Ren, Juan Yin, Qi Shen, Yuan Cao, Zheng-Ping Li, et al. Satellite-to-ground quantum key distribution.Nature, 549(7670):43–47, 2017. 10 Method MNIST Fashion-MNIST EMNIST CIFAR-10 QCNN Accuracy 74.2% 73.8% 34.4% 33.1% PQEU Accuracy 93.1% 82.3% 78.3% 44.3% PQEU AND S-MUB Accuracy 96.1% 83...

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Quantum internet: Networking challenges in distributed quantum computing.IEEE Net- work, 34(1):137–143, 2019

    Angela Sara Cacciapuoti, Marcello Caleffi, Francesco Tafuri, Francesco Saverio Cataliotti, Stefano Gherardini, and Giuseppe Bianchi. Quantum internet: Networking challenges in distributed quantum computing.IEEE Net- work, 34(1):137–143, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Microsatellite-based real- time quantum key distribution.Nature, pages 1–8, 2025

    Yang Li, Wen-Qi Cai, Ji-Gang Ren, Chao-Ze Wang, Meng Yang, Liang Zhang, Hui-Ying Wu, Liang Chang, Jin-Cai Wu, Biao Jin, et al. Microsatellite-based real- time quantum key distribution.Nature, pages 1–8, 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Quantum supremacy using a programmable supercon- ducting processor.Nature, 574(7779):505–510, 2019

    Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando GSL Brandao, David A Buell, et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable supercon- ducting processor.Nature, 574(7779):505–510, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Quantum computational advan- tage using photons.Science, 370(6523):1460–1463, 2020

    Han-Sen Zhong, Hui Wang, Yu-Hao Deng, Ming-Cheng Chen, Li-Chao Peng, Yi-Han Luo, Jian Qin, Dian Wu, Xing Ding, Yi Hu, et al. Quantum computational advan- tage using photons.Science, 370(6523):1460–1463, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Realizing repeated quantum er- ror correction in a distance-three surface code.Nature, 605(7911):669–674, 2022

    Sebastian Krinner, Nathan Lacroix, Ants Remm, Agustin Di Paolo, Elie Genois, Catherine Leroux, ChristophHellings, StefaniaLazar, FrancoisSwiadek, Jo- hannes Herrmann, et al. Realizing repeated quantum er- ror correction in a distance-three surface code.Nature, 605(7911):669–674, 2022

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Signal amplification in a solid- state sensor through asymmetric many-body echo.Na- ture, 646(8083):68–73, 2025

    Haoyang Gao, Leigh S Martin, Lillian B Hughes, Nathaniel T Leitao, Piotr Put, Hengyun Zhou, Nazli U Koyluoglu, Simon A Meynell, Ania C Bleszynski Jayich, Hongkun Park, et al. Signal amplification in a solid- state sensor through asymmetric many-body echo.Na- ture, 646(8083):68–73, 2025

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Scalable quantum simulation of molecular energies.Physical Review X, 6(3):031007, 2016

    Peter JJ O’Malley, Ryan Babbush, Ian D Kivlichan, Jonathan Romero, Jarrod R McClean, Rami Barends, Julian Kelly, Pedram Roushan, Andrew Tranter, Nan Ding, et al. Scalable quantum simulation of molecular energies.Physical Review X, 6(3):031007, 2016

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    Analoguequantum chemistry simulation.Nature, 574(7777):215–218, 2019

    Javier Argüello-Luengo, Alejandro González-Tudela, Tao Shi, Peter Zoller, and J IgnacioCirac. Analoguequantum chemistry simulation.Nature, 574(7777):215–218, 2019

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    Bell, Stephen D

    Cooper Doyle, Wei-Wei Zhang, Michelle Wang, Bryn A. Bell, Stephen D. Bartlett, and Andrea Blanco-Redondo. Biphoton entanglement of topologically distinct modes. Phys. Rev. A, 105:023513, Feb 2022

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Beyond-classical computation in quantum sim- ulation.Science, 388(6743):199–204, 2025

    Andrew D King, Alberto Nocera, Marek M Rams, Jacek Dziarmaga, Roeland Wiersema, William Bernoudy, Jack Raymond, Nitin Kaushal, Niclas Heinsdorf, Richard Har- ris, et al. Beyond-classical computation in quantum sim- ulation.Science, 388(6743):199–204, 2025

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Quantum versa- tility in pagerank.Phys

    Wei-Wei Zhang, Zheping Wu, Hengyue Jia, Wei Zhao, Qingbing Ji, Wei Pan, and Haobin Shi. Quantum versa- tility in pagerank.Phys. Rev. Res., 6:043163, Nov 2024

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Self- induced manipulation of biphoton entanglement in topo- logically distinct modes.Phys

    Wei-Wei Zhang, Chao Chen, and Jizhou Wu. Self- induced manipulation of biphoton entanglement in topo- logically distinct modes.Phys. Rev. Appl., 24:054025, Nov 2025

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Quantum metrology.Phys

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. Quantum metrology.Phys. Rev. Lett., 96:010401, Jan 2006

    work page 2006

  17. [17]

    W. Dür, M. Skotiniotis, F. Fröwis, and B. Kraus. Im- proved quantum metrology using quantum error correc- tion.Phys. Rev. Lett., 112:080801, Feb 2014

    work page 2014

  18. [18]

    Paris, and Abolfazl Bayat

    Victor Montenegro, Chiranjib Mukhopadhyay, Rozhin Yousefjani, Saubhik Sarkar, Utkarsh Mishra, Mat- teo G.A. Paris, and Abolfazl Bayat. Review: Quantum metrology and sensing with many-body systems.Physics Reports, 1134:1–62, 2025. Review: Quantum metrology and sensing with many-body systems

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Quan- tum metrology with a continuous-variable system.Re- ports on Progress in Physics, 88(10):106001, oct 2025

    Matteo Fadel, Noah Roux, and Manuel Gessner. Quan- tum metrology with a continuous-variable system.Re- ports on Progress in Physics, 88(10):106001, oct 2025

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    The complexity of nisq.Nature Communications, 14(1):6001, 2023

    Sitan Chen, Jordan Cotler, Hsin-Yuan Huang, and Jerry Li. The complexity of nisq.Nature Communications, 14(1):6001, 2023

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Nisq computing: where are we and where do we go?AAPPS bulletin, 32(1):27, 2022

    Jonathan Wei Zhong Lau, Kian Hwee Lim, Harshank Shrotriya, and Leong Chuan Kwek. Nisq computing: where are we and where do we go?AAPPS bulletin, 32(1):27, 2022

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models.Advances in neural infor- mation processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models.Advances in neural infor- mation processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    Inverse molecular design using machine learning: Gen- erative models for matter engineering.Science, 361(6400):360–365, 2018

    Benjamin Sanchez-Lengeling and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. Inverse molecular design using machine learning: Gen- erative models for matter engineering.Science, 361(6400):360–365, 2018

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    Generative adversarial networks

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial networks. Communications of the ACM, 63(11):139–144, 2020

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models

    Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Bar- ret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. Emer- gent abilities of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682, 2022

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    Eight things to know about large language models.Critical AI, 2(2), 2024

    Samuel R Bowman. Eight things to know about large language models.Critical AI, 2(2), 2024

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4

    Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, et al. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    and Coyle, D

    Girish Sastry, Lennart Heim, Haydn Belfield, Markus Anderljung, Miles Brundage, Julian Hazell, Cullen O’keefe, Gillian K Hadfield, Richard Ngo, Konstantin Pilz, et al. Computing power and the governance of artifi- cial intelligence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08797, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Hardware-efficientvariationalquantumeigen- solver for small molecules and quantum magnets.nature, 549(7671):242–246, 2017

    Abhinav Kandala, Antonio Mezzacapo, Kristan Temme, Maika Takita, Markus Brink, Jerry M Chow, and Jay M 11 Gambetta. Hardware-efficientvariationalquantumeigen- solver for small molecules and quantum magnets.nature, 549(7671):242–246, 2017

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    Variational quantum algorithms.Nature Reviews Physics, 3(9):625–644, 2021

    Marco Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Si- mon C Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jarrod R McClean, Kosuke Mitarai, Xiao Yuan, Lukasz Cincio, et al. Variational quantum algorithms.Nature Reviews Physics, 3(9):625–644, 2021

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    Unified framework for quantum classification.Phys- ical Review Research, 3(3):033056, 2021

    Nhat A Nghiem, Samuel Yen-Chi Chen, and Tzu-Chieh Wei. Unified framework for quantum classification.Phys- ical Review Research, 3(3):033056, 2021

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Quantum convolutional neural network for classical data classifica- tion.Quantum Machine Intelligence, 4(1):3, 2022

    Tak Hur, Leeseok Kim, and Daniel K Park. Quantum convolutional neural network for classical data classifica- tion.Quantum Machine Intelligence, 4(1):3, 2022

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    Quantum denoising diffusion models

    Michael Kölle, Gerhard Stenzel, Jonas Stein, Sebastian Zielinski, Björn Ommer, and Claudia Linnhoff-Popien. Quantum denoising diffusion models. In2024 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Quantum Software (QSW), pages 88–98. IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    Quantum diffusion models for few-shot learning

    Ruhan Wang, Ye Wang, Jing Liu, and Toshiaki Koike- Akino. Quantum diffusion models for few-shot learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04217, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Minami, K

    Shunya Minami, Kouhei Nakaji, Yohichi Suzuki, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, and Tadashi Kadowaki. Generative quan- tum combinatorial optimization by means of a novel con- ditional generative quantum eigensolver.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.16986, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Quan- tum data generation in a denoising model with multiscale entanglement renormalization network.Physica Scripta, 100(6):065120, 2025

    Wei-Wei Zhang, Xiaopeng Huang, Shenglin Shan, Wei Zhao, Beiya Yang, Wei Pan, and Haobin Shi. Quan- tum data generation in a denoising model with multiscale entanglement renormalization network.Physica Scripta, 100(6):065120, 2025

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.00406 (2025)

    Thanveer Shaik, Xiaohui Tao, Haoran Xie, and Robert Sang. Quantummachineunlearning: Foundations, mech- anisms, and taxonomy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.00406, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Quantum-noise-driven generative diffusion models.Ad- vanced Quantum Technologies, page 2300401, 2024

    Marco Parigi, Stefano Martina, and Filippo Caruso. Quantum-noise-driven generative diffusion models.Ad- vanced Quantum Technologies, page 2300401, 2024

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Generative quantum machine learning via de- noising diffusion probabilistic models.Physical Review Letters, 132(10):100602, 2024

    Bingzhi Zhang, Peng Xu, Xiaohui Chen, and Quntao Zhuang. Generative quantum machine learning via de- noising diffusion probabilistic models.Physical Review Letters, 132(10):100602, 2024

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    Mixed- state quantum denoising diffusion probabilistic model

    Gino Kwun, Bingzhi Zhang, and Quntao Zhuang. Mixed- state quantum denoising diffusion probabilistic model. Physical Review A, 111(3):032610, 2025

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    Guang Ping Guang Ping He. Using a single circuit to compute the gradients with respect to all parameters of a quantum neural network: Using a single circuit to compute the gradients with respect to all parame- ters of a quantum neural network.Frontiers of Physics, 21(8):083201, 2026

    work page 2026

  42. [42]

    Output prediction of quantum circuits based on graph neural networks: Output predic- tion of quantum circuits based on graph neural networks

    Yuxiang Liu, Fanxu Meng, Lu Wang, Yi Hu, Zaichen Zhang, and Xutao Yu. Output prediction of quantum circuits based on graph neural networks: Output predic- tion of quantum circuits based on graph neural networks. Frontiers of Physics, 21(6):063201, 2026

    work page 2026

  43. [43]

    Quan- tum convolutional neural networks.Nature Physics, 15(12):1273–1278, 2019

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

    work page 2019

  44. [44]

    A multiple simd, multiple data (msmd) architecture: Parallel exe- cution of dynamic and static simd fragments

    Yaohua Wang, Shuming Chen, Jianghua Wan, Jiayuan Meng, Kai Zhang, Wei Liu, and Xi Ning. A multiple simd, multiple data (msmd) architecture: Parallel exe- cution of dynamic and static simd fragments. In2013 IEEE 19th International Symposium on High Perfor- mance Computer Architecture (HPCA), pages 603–614. IEEE, 2013

    work page 2013

  45. [45]

    Experimental realization of quantum tomography of pho- tonic qudits via symmetric informationally complete pos- itive operator-valued measures.Physical Review X, 5(4):041006, 2015

    Nicolas Bent, H Qassim, AA Tahir, D Sych, Gerd Leuchs, Luis Lorenzo Sánchez-Soto, E Karimi, and RW Boyd. Experimental realization of quantum tomography of pho- tonic qudits via symmetric informationally complete pos- itive operator-valued measures.Physical Review X, 5(4):041006, 2015

    work page 2015

  46. [46]

    Adaptivetomographyofqubits: purityver- sus statistical fluctuations.Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical, 51(39):395304, 2018

    Aonan Zhang, Yujie Zhang, Feixiang Xu, Long Li, and LijianZhang. Adaptivetomographyofqubits: purityver- sus statistical fluctuations.Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical, 51(39):395304, 2018

    work page 2018

  47. [47]

    Quantifying measurement incom- patibility of mutually unbiased bases.Physical review letters, 122(5):050402, 2019

    Sébastien Designolle, Paul Skrzypczyk, Florian Fröwis, and Nicolas Brunner. Quantifying measurement incom- patibility of mutually unbiased bases.Physical review letters, 122(5):050402, 2019

    work page 2019

  48. [48]

    Mutually unbiased bases and symmetric informationally complete measurements in bell experiments.Science advances, 7(7):eabc3847, 2021

    Armin Tavakoli, Máté Farkas, Denis Rosset, Jean-Daniel Bancal, and Jedrzej Kaniewski. Mutually unbiased bases and symmetric informationally complete measurements in bell experiments.Science advances, 7(7):eabc3847, 2021

    work page 2021

  49. [49]

    Mu- tually unbiased measurements, hadamard matrices, and superdense coding.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 69(6):3814–3824, 2023

    MátéFarkas, JędrzejKaniewski, andAshwinNayak. Mu- tually unbiased measurements, hadamard matrices, and superdense coding.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 69(6):3814–3824, 2023

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    Quantum deep equilibrium models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:31940–31967, 2024

    Philipp Schleich, Marta Skreta, Lasse Bjørn Kristensen, Rodrigo Vargas-Hernandez, and Alan Aspuru-Guzik. Quantum deep equilibrium models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:31940–31967, 2024

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    A resource-efficient quantum convolu- tional neural network.Frontiers in Physics, 12:1362690, 2024

    Yanqi Song, Jing Li, Yusen Wu, Sujuan Qin, Qiaoyan Wen, and Fei Gao. A resource-efficient quantum convolu- tional neural network.Frontiers in Physics, 12:1362690, 2024

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    Quantum data encoding: A comparative analysis of classical-to-quantum mapping techniques and their impact on machine learning accu- racy.EPJ Quantum Technology, 11(1):72, 2024

    Minati Rath and Hema Date. Quantum data encoding: A comparative analysis of classical-to-quantum mapping techniques and their impact on machine learning accu- racy.EPJ Quantum Technology, 11(1):72, 2024

    work page 2024