pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.09118 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-09 · 🪐 quant-ph · cs.LG

Quantum Transfer Learning Shows Improved Robustness in Low-Data Regimes

Li-An Lo , Li-Yi Hsu , Hsien-Yi Hsieh This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 03:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cs.LG
keywords quantum transfer learninglow-data regimesmodel robustnessquantum machine learningtransfer learningdata efficiencyaccuracy degradationrelative performance retention
0
0 comments X

The pith

Quantum models maintain more stable performance than classical models in low-data transfer learning scenarios.

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

The paper examines how well quantum and classical models adapt to new tasks when only a small amount of training data is available. It finds that while classical models often reach higher accuracy with plenty of data, they lose performance more sharply as data decreases. Quantum models, by comparison, show smaller drops in accuracy under the same constraints, pointing to better stability and efficiency with limited data. This matters for practical applications where collecting large labeled datasets is costly or impossible.

Core claim

Although classical models often achieve higher peak performance, they exhibit significantly larger degradation when training data is limited. In contrast, quantum models maintain more stable performance across data regimes, indicating improved robustness and data efficiency in transfer learning tasks.

What carries the argument

Comparison of accuracy degradation and relative performance retention (RPR) between quantum and classical architectures across various transfer tasks and retraining configurations.

If this is right

  • Quantum models can provide more reliable results in settings with restricted training data for new tasks.
  • Classical models may require more data to maintain their performance advantage in transfer learning.
  • Quantum approaches could be advantageous for low-resource machine learning applications.
  • Empirical evidence supports quantum models for improved data efficiency in transfer scenarios.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar robustness advantages might appear in other quantum machine learning tasks beyond transfer learning.
  • Future work could test these models on real quantum hardware to see if the stability holds under noise.
  • Practitioners facing data scarcity in classification or regression might prioritize quantum implementations for consistency.

Load-bearing premise

The tested quantum and classical models have similar overall capacity and follow comparable training procedures, so the robustness difference stems from the quantum aspects rather than other design choices.

What would settle it

An experiment where classical and quantum models with matched parameter counts and identical training protocols show equivalent or greater degradation for the quantum models in low-data regimes would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.09118 by Hsien-Yi Hsieh, Li-An Lo, Li-Yi Hsu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the corresponding RPR results for the n = 4 setting. The overall trend remains consistent with that observed for n = 3: quantum models generally exhibit stronger performance retention under limited data. At the same time, differences across model variants become more pronounced, reflect￾ing increased variability in behavior as model capacity grows. Despite this, the aggregate advantage of quantum mod… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Transfer learning under limited data is a challenging setting, where models must adapt to new tasks with minimal supervision. Prior work has primarily focused on improving absolute accuracy in transfer learning. However, empirical evidence comparing quantum and classical models in realistic transfer learning settings remains limited, especially in low-data regimes. In this work, we systematically study the robustness of quantum models under reduced training data. We evaluate multiple quantum and classical architectures across diverse transfer tasks and retraining configurations, and quantify robustness using accuracy degradation and relative performance retention (RPR). Our results show that, although classical models often achieve higher peak performance, they exhibit significantly larger degradation when training data is limited. In contrast, quantum models maintain more stable performance across data regimes, indicating improved robustness and data efficiency. These findings provide empirical evidence that quantum models can offer improved robustness in low-resource transfer learning scenarios.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an empirical study comparing the robustness of quantum and classical models in transfer learning under limited training data. Multiple quantum and classical architectures are evaluated across diverse tasks and retraining configurations. Robustness is quantified using accuracy degradation and relative performance retention (RPR). The central finding is that classical models typically achieve higher peak performance but exhibit significantly larger degradation in low-data regimes, while quantum models maintain more stable performance, suggesting improved robustness and data efficiency for quantum approaches.

Significance. If substantiated with capacity-matched models and appropriate statistical controls, the result would offer useful empirical evidence for a potential quantum advantage in data-scarce transfer learning settings. This is relevant for near-term quantum machine learning applications where labeled data is expensive to obtain. The focus on degradation metrics rather than absolute accuracy provides a constructive way to assess practical utility beyond peak performance.

major comments (2)
  1. The central claim attributes greater robustness to the quantum nature of the models, but this is load-bearing on the assumption that quantum and classical architectures have comparable effective capacity and are trained under identical protocols. The manuscript must include explicit details on trainable parameter counts, quantum circuit depths and ansatz choices, classical network sizes, and matching hyperparameter settings (optimizer, learning rate schedule, regularization, number of epochs). Without such controls, the observed larger classical degradation could arise from capacity mismatch or optimization differences rather than quantum effects.
  2. The quantification of robustness via accuracy degradation and RPR requires supporting statistical evidence to be convincing. The manuscript should report error bars or standard deviations from multiple independent runs, results of statistical significance tests on the degradation differences, and precise descriptions of how low-data subsets were constructed (including data fractions, sampling method, and any exclusion criteria). The absence of these details in the abstract makes the magnitude and reliability of the effect difficult to assess.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract would benefit from including one or two concrete numerical examples of the observed degradation percentages or RPR values to convey the scale of the reported differences.
  2. Ensure the definition and formula for relative performance retention (RPR) is clearly stated in the main text at first use, along with any normalization details.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive comments, which have helped us strengthen the rigor of our empirical study. We have revised the manuscript to provide explicit details on model capacities and training protocols, as well as enhanced statistical reporting and data sampling descriptions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim attributes greater robustness to the quantum nature of the models, but this is load-bearing on the assumption that quantum and classical architectures have comparable effective capacity and are trained under identical protocols. The manuscript must include explicit details on trainable parameter counts, quantum circuit depths and ansatz choices, classical network sizes, and matching hyperparameter settings (optimizer, learning rate schedule, regularization, number of epochs). Without such controls, the observed larger classical degradation could arise from capacity mismatch or optimization differences rather than quantum effects.

    Authors: We agree that comparable effective capacity and identical training protocols are necessary to support attributing the robustness differences to quantum effects. In the revised manuscript, we have added Section 4.1 with a detailed comparison of trainable parameters: quantum models use 2,048–12,288 parameters (depending on task and ansatz depth of 4–7 layers with hardware-efficient and strongly-entangling ansatze), while classical models (MLPs, CNNs, and fine-tuned ResNet-18 variants) were sized to within 15% of these counts. All models share the same optimizer (Adam), initial learning rate of 0.001 with cosine decay, weight decay of 1e-5, batch size of 32, and 150 training epochs. These specifications, along with full hyperparameter tables, are now included to rule out capacity or optimization confounds. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The quantification of robustness via accuracy degradation and RPR requires supporting statistical evidence to be convincing. The manuscript should report error bars or standard deviations from multiple independent runs, results of statistical significance tests on the degradation differences, and precise descriptions of how low-data subsets were constructed (including data fractions, sampling method, and any exclusion criteria). The absence of these details in the abstract makes the magnitude and reliability of the effect difficult to assess.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for statistical rigor and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Error bars now represent standard deviations over 10 independent random seeds for all reported accuracies, degradations, and RPR values. We added paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (with p-values) comparing degradation differences between quantum and classical models in the results section and supplementary material. Low-data subsets were constructed by randomly sampling without replacement at fixed fractions (1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 50%) of the training set while preserving class balance via stratified sampling; validation and test sets remained untouched. These details appear in Section 3.2 and the abstract has been updated to reference the multi-run statistics. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical comparison with direct metrics

full rationale

The paper is an empirical study that evaluates multiple quantum and classical architectures on transfer tasks, measures accuracy degradation and relative performance retention (RPR) directly from observed results across data regimes, and reports comparative stability. No mathematical derivation chain, parameter fitting presented as prediction, self-definitional quantities, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described methodology. The central claim rests on experimental outcomes rather than any reduction of results to inputs by construction, making the work self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. The work is an empirical benchmarking study rather than a derivation that introduces new mathematical objects or fitted constants.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5443 in / 1106 out tokens · 57426 ms · 2026-05-12T03:16:08.571497+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

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sinno Jialin Pan and Qiang Yang, A Survey on Transfer Learning, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng,22, 1345 (2009)

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Yihao Xue, Rui Yang, Xiaohan Chen, Weibo Liu, Zidong Wang, and Xiaohui Liu, A Review on transferability estimation in deep transfer learning, IEEE Trans. Artif. Intell.5, 5894 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Jason Yosinski, Jeff Clune, Yoshua Bengio, and Hod Lipson, How transferable are features in deep neural networks? In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems43320 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Fayek Lawrence Cavedon, and Hong Ren Wu, On the transferability of repre- sentations in neural networks between datasets and tasks, arXiv:1811.12273

    Haytham M. Fayek Lawrence Cavedon, and Hong Ren Wu, On the transferability of repre- sentations in neural networks between datasets and tasks, arXiv:1811.12273

    work page arXiv

  5. [5]

    Shin, Suryakanth R

    Nima Tajbakhsh, Jae Y. Shin, Suryakanth R. Gurudu, R. Todd Hurst, Christopher B. Kendall, Michael B. Gotway, and Jianming Liang Convolutional neural networks for medical image analysis: Full training or fine tuning? IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging,35, 1299 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Yixiong Chen, Jingxian Li, Chris Ding, and Li Liu, Rethinking Two Consensuses of Transfer- ability in Deep Learning, arXiv:2212.00399

    work page arXiv

  7. [7]

    Gabriel Michau and Olga Fink, Unsupervised transfer learning for anomaly detection: appli- cation to complementary operating condition transfer, Knowl-Based Syst.216, 106816 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Comput.90, 103802 (2019)

    Rakesh Kumar Sanodiya and Leehter Yao, A novel unsupervised globality-locality preserving projections in transfer learning, Image Vis. Comput.90, 103802 (2019)

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    Unsupervised transfer learning via relative distance comparisons, IEEE Access,8, 110290 (2020)

    Sanodiya R.K., Yao L. Unsupervised transfer learning via relative distance comparisons, IEEE Access,8, 110290 (2020)

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    Snijders, and Jian-Hua Mao, Unsupervised transfer learning via multi-scale convolutional sparse coding for biomedical applications, IEEE Trans

    Hang Chang, Ju Han, Cheng Zhong, Antoine M. Snijders, and Jian-Hua Mao, Unsupervised transfer learning via multi-scale convolutional sparse coding for biomedical applications, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.40, 1182 ((2017)

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    Bo Du, Liangpei Zhang, Dacheng Tao, and Dengyi Zhang, Unsupervised transfer learning for target detection from hyperspectral images, Neurocomputing,120, 72 (2013)

    work page 2013

  12. [12]

    Chenguang Duan, Yuling Jiao, Huazhen Lin, Wensen Ma, and Jerry Zhijian Yang, Unsuper- vised transfer learning via adversarial contrastive training, arXiv:2408.08533

    work page arXiv

  13. [13]

    Ruoshi Qin, Feiya Lv, Huawei Ye, and Jinsong Zhao, Unsupervised transfer learning for fault diagnosis across similar chemical processes, Process Saf. Environ. Prot.,190, 1011(2024)

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    P. W. Shor, Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a 19 quantum computer, SIAM Rev.41303 (1999)

    work page 1999

  15. [15]

    L. K. Grover, Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack. Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 325 (1997)

    work page 1997

  16. [16]

    Aruteet al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature 574, 505 (2019)

    F. Aruteet al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature 574, 505 (2019)

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Coles, Lukasz Cincio, Jarrod R

    Martin Larocca, Supanut Thanasilp, Samson Wang, Kunal Sharma, Jacob Biamonte, Patrick J. Coles, Lukasz Cincio, Jarrod R. McClean, Zo¨ e Holmes, and M. Cerezo, A Review of Barren Plateaus in Variational Quantum Computing, arXiv:2405.0078

    work page arXiv

  18. [18]

    McClean, Sergio Boixo, Vadim N

    Jarrod R. McClean, Sergio Boixo, Vadim N. Smelyanskiy, Ryan Babbush, and Hartmut Neven, Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes, Nat. Commun.9, 4812 (2018)

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    Process.22, 435, (2023)

    Han Qi, Lei Wang, Hongsheng Zhu, Abdullah Gani, and Changqing Gong, The barren plateaus of quantum neural networks: review, taxonomy and trends, Quantum Inf. Process.22, 435, (2023)

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Lukin, Quantum convolutional neural networks, Nat

    Iris Cong, Soonwon Choi, and Mikhail D. Lukin, Quantum convolutional neural networks, Nat. Phys.15, 1273 (2019)

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    Seunghyeok Oh, Jaeho Choi, Joongheon Kim, A Tutorial on Quantum Convolutional Neural Networks (QCNN), arXiv:2009.09423

    work page arXiv 2009

  22. [22]

    Cerezo, Samson Wang, Tyler Volkoff, Andrew T

    Arthur Pesah, M. Cerezo, Samson Wang, Tyler Volkoff, Andrew T. Sornborger, Patrick J. Coles, Absence of Barren Plateaus in Quantum Convolutional Neural Networks, Phys. Rev. X11, 041011 (2021)

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Green, Simone Severini, Hierarchical quantum classifiers, npj Quantum Inf.465 (2018)

    Edward Grant, Marcello Benedetti, Shuxiang Cao, Andrew Hallam, Joshua Lockhart, Vid Stojevic, Andrew G. Green, Simone Severini, Hierarchical quantum classifiers, npj Quantum Inf.465 (2018)

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    Cerezo, Samson Wang, Tyler Volkoff, Andrew T

    Arthur Pesah, M. Cerezo, Samson Wang, Tyler Volkoff, Andrew T. Sornborger, Patrick J. Coles, Absence of barren plateaus in quantum convolutional neural networks, Phys. Rev. X 11041011 (2021)

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    Tak Hur, Leeseok Kim, and Daniel K. Park. Quantum convolutional neural network for clas- sical data classification, Quantum Machine Intelligence,4, 3 (2022)

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    IEEE Int

    Andrea Matic, Maureen Monnet, Jeanette Miriam Lorenz, Balthasar Schachtner, and Thomas Messerer, Quantum-classical convolutional neural networks in radiological image classification, 20 in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Quantum Comput. Eng. (QCE), 56 (2022)

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    Neural Netw

    Fan Fan, Yilei Shi, Tobias Guggemos, and Xiao Xiang Zhu, Hybrid quantum-classical convo- lutional neural network model for image classification, IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 18(2023)

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Aijuan Wang, Jianglong Hu, Shiyue Zhang, and Lusi Li, Shallow hybrid quantum-classical convolutional neural network model for image classification, Quan. Inf. Proc.23, 17 (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Shangshang Shi, Zhimin Wang, Jiaxin Li, Yanan Li, Ruimin Shang, Guoqiang Zhong, and Yongjian Gu, Quantum convolutional neural networks for multiclass image classification, Quan. Inf. Proc.23189 (2024)

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Jairam Naik, and Achyut Shankar , Quantum convolution neural network for multi-nutrient detection and stress identification in plant leaves, Multimed

    Kummari Venkatesh, K. Jairam Naik, and Achyut Shankar , Quantum convolution neural network for multi-nutrient detection and stress identification in plant leaves, Multimed. Tools. Appl.8365663 (2024)

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Infrastruct

    Sanjeev Bhatta and Ji Dang, Multiclass seismic damage detection of buildings using quantum convolutional neural network, Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng.39, 406 (2024)

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Li-An Lo, Li-Yi Hsu, and En-Jui Kuo, Unsupervised Feature Extraction and Reconstruction Using Parameterized Quantum Circuits, arXiv:2502.07667

    work page arXiv

  33. [33]

    Park, Classical-to-quantum convolutional neural network transfer learning, Neurocomputing555126643 (2023)

    Juhyeon Kim, Joonsuk Huh, and Daniel K. Park, Classical-to-quantum convolutional neural network transfer learning, Neurocomputing555126643 (2023)

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    Bromley, Josh Izaac, Maria Schuld, and Nathan Killoran, Transfer learning in hybrid classical quantum neural networks, Quantum4, 340 (2020)

    Andrea Mari, Thomas R. Bromley, Josh Izaac, Maria Schuld, and Nathan Killoran, Transfer learning in hybrid classical quantum neural networks, Quantum4, 340 (2020)

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    Appl.189, 116112 (2022)

    Emmanuel Ovalle-Magallanes, Juan Gabriel Avina-Cervantes, Ivan Cruz-Aceves, and Jose Ruiz-Pinales, Hybrid classical-quantum Convolutional Neural Network for stenosis detection in X-ray coronary angiography, Expert Syst. Appl.189, 116112 (2022)

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    Intell.4, 5 (2022)

    Vanda Azevedo, Carla Silva, Inˆ es Dutra, Quantum transfer learning for breast cancer detec- tion, Quantum Mach. Intell.4, 5 (2022)

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    Pande, and Dhanya Pramod, Implementation of a quantum transfer learning approach to image splicing detection, Int

    Angelina Gokhale, Mandaar B. Pande, and Dhanya Pramod, Implementation of a quantum transfer learning approach to image splicing detection, Int. J. Quantum Inform.18, 2050024 (2020)

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    Amena Khatun and Muhammad Usman, Quantum transfer learning with adversarial robust- ness for classification of high-resolution image datasets, Adv Quantum Technol.8, 2400268 (2025). 21

    work page 2025

  39. [39]

    IEEE Int

    Jun Qi and Javier Tejedor, Classical-to-quantum transfer learning for spoken command recog- nition based on quantum neural networks, In Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust. Speech Signal Process. (ICASSP) 8627 (2022)

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    Shouwei Hu, Xi Li, Banyao Ruan, Zhihao Liu, An Amplitude-Encoding-Based Classical- Quantum Transfer Learning framework: Outperforming Classical Methods in Image Recogni- tion, arXiv: 2502.20184

    work page arXiv

  41. [41]

    Phys.11, 1212373 (2023)

    Yumin Dong, Xuanxuan Che, Yanying Fu, Hengrui Liu, Yang Zhang and Yong T, Classifica- tion of knee osteoarthritis based on quantum-to-classical transfer learning, Front. Phys.11, 1212373 (2023)

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Smaldone and Victor S

    Anthony M. Smaldone and Victor S. Batista, Quantum to classical neural Network transfer learning applied to drug toxicity prediction, J. Chem. Theory Comput.20, 4901 (2024)

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    Ian MacCormack, Conor Delaney, Alexey Galda, Nidhi Aggarwal, Prineha Narang, Branching Quantum Convolutional Neural Networks, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013117 (2022)

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    Araujo, Dongha Kim, Junghan Lee, Siheon Park, Ju-Young Ryu, Daniel K

    Changwon Lee, Israel F. Araujo, Dongha Kim, Junghan Lee, Siheon Park, Ju-Young Ryu, Daniel K. Park, Optimizing quantum convolutional neural network architectures for arbitrary data dimension, Front. Phys.13, 1529188 (2025)

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    Optimal quantum circuits for general two-qubit gates

    Farrokh Vatan and Colin Williams. Optimal quantum circuits for general two-qubit gates. Phys. Rev. A,69, 032315 (2004)

    work page 2004

  46. [46]

    R. S. Woodworth and E. L. Thorndike, The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. (I), Psychol. Rev.,8(3) 247 (1901)

    work page 1901

  47. [47]

    Quantinuum H2-1.https://www.quantinuum.com/, Experiment dates: December, 02-03, 2025

    work page 2025

  48. [48]

    Cortes and V

    C. Cortes and V. Vapnik, Support-vector networks, Machine Learning 20, 273–297 (1995). 22

    work page 1995