Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Uncertainty in Supply Chain Digital Twins: A Quantum-Classical Hybrid Approach

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that quantum feature transformation shifts uncertainty estimates and outlier flags in supply-chain hybrid models, with qubit count as the tuning lever and accuracy unchanged.

desk verdict The qubit effect on UQ is confounded by feature dimensionality, and the paper's own outlier data contradict its headline claim; the pipeline is a known assembly, and the internal inconsistencies (target variable naming, RMSE scale) undermine the numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10254 v3 pith:YCORC4YA submitted 2024-11-15 cs.LG

Abdullah Abdullah , Fannya Ratana Sandjaja , Ayesha Abdul Majeed , Gyan Wickremasinghe , Karen Rafferty , Vishal Sharma This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords uncertaintyquantificationquantum-classicalhybridmodelssupplychaindigitaltwinsquantumfeatureengineeringqubitscalingoutlierdetectionpredictionintervalsrisk-adjustedcostefficiency
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 paper asks whether adding a quantum feature-transformation step to ordinary regression models changes what the models report about their own uncertainty, in the setting of supply-chain digital twins. It argues that it does: with the same predictive accuracy, quantum-classical hybrids produce narrower uncertainty distributions, different outlier detections, and different risk-adjusted cost-efficiency scores than classical models alone. The paper also claims that scaling the circuit from 4 to 16 qubits measurably shifts the uncertainties, but not the errors, of Bayesian ridge regression and quantile regression. A sympathetic reader would care because trustworthy uncertainty estimates, not just point predictions, are what let a planner decide when to trust a digital twin and when to investigate an outlier.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a hand-designed parameterized quantum feature map: input features are rotated onto qubits with RX/RY/RZ gates, Hadamard gates create superposition, parameterized RY/RZ rotations and CY/CRZ/CNOT/CZ entangling gates build expressivity, and the circuit is read out by Pauli-X/Y/Z expectation values that become the new feature vector. Its parameters are optimized to maximize mutual information with the target while penalizing feature correlation. Feeding these quantum-computed features into Bayesian ridge regression, quantile regression, random forest, and a Monte-Carlo-dropout neural network creates the hybrid UQ models, so qubit count effectively controls the dimension and structure of the feature space whose uncertainty behaviour the paper measures.

What would settle it

Re-run the same pipeline with classical nonlinear feature maps of identical output dimension (for example random Fourier features or a fixed random rotation of the inputs) and the same mutual-information selection; if the 4-to-16 dimension scaling reproduces the same uncertainty shifts, outlier counts, and RACE curves, the quantum-specific part of the claim is not supported. A permutation test with shuffled targets should also be done: if qubit-count effects persist under label shuffling, the differences are not signal-driven.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that quantum feature transformation is a lever on uncertainty quantification, not just on accuracy: substituting quantum-transformed features for raw features keeps point predictions comparable (R² ≈ 0.79, RMSE ≈ 0.78, MAE ≈ 0.75) while systematically changing the uncertainty estimates. The paper shows the hybrid Bayesian ridge and quantile models have significantly different predictive uncertainty than their classical counterparts (Wilcoxon p = 6.08E-51 and 9.33E-06), that hybrid models flag more uncertainty-based outliers, and that increasing the qubit count from 4 to 16 produces significant differences in uncertainty across configurations (Kruskal-Wallis p < 0.05) with no significant change in errors. The authors present this as evidence that larger quantum feature spaces alter how uncertainty propagates through classical UQ machinery, and they translate the effect into financial terms through a risk-adjusted cost-efficiency penalty.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that this particular quantum circuit is a genuinely expressive feature map for the data; if the circuit's optimization just adds noise or extra dimensions, the observed qubit-dependent uncertainty differences could be artifacts of dimensionality rather than quantum-enhanced representation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Qubit count can be used in practice as a tunable sensitivity knob for uncertainty reporting, since accuracy does not degrade while uncertainty changes.
  • Supply-chain digital twins built this way will produce different outlier flags and confidence intervals than classical twins, which changes which transactions get flagged for human review.
  • The risk-adjusted cost-efficiency formula gives managers a direct way to price the uncertainty difference, converting a statistical change into a financial consequence.
  • Because HQBRR and HQQR are the models most sensitive to qubit count, deployment should involve choosing the qubit configuration per model rather than assuming one setting works for all.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit is a direct comparison against classical kernel feature maps of the same dimension, which would separate quantum expressivity from sheer input-space expansion.
  • The paper's own results show RF and NN barely react to qubit scaling, so a follow-up could test whether the sensitivity difference tracks the UQ mechanism (tree variance vs. MC dropout) rather than the quantum features per se.
  • If the qubit effect is real, it should reproduce on real supply-chain datasets and should change the calibration of prediction intervals (PICP) in a way that can be tested against classical baselines.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantum-classical hybrid framework for uncertainty quantification (UQ) in supply chain digital twin predictions. It applies Bayesian ridge regression (BRR), quantile regression (QR), random forest (RF), and a neural network (NN) to both classical features and quantum-transformed features (generated by parameterized circuits with 4 to 16 qubits), and compares UQ metrics such as uncertainty-error correlation, prediction interval coverage (PICP), outlier detection (OD) counts, and a proposed risk-adjusted cost efficiency (RACE) score. The central claim is that quantum feature transformations and increasing qubit counts alter predictive uncertainty and outlier detection outcomes without degrading predictive accuracy.

Significance. If the claims were established, the work would provide a practical demonstration that quantum feature transformations and qubit scaling can change UQ outputs in hybrid ML models, which could be relevant for supply chain risk management. The paper uses established UQ techniques, reports model-specific results including cases where quantum and classical models behave similarly, and includes a reproducibility-oriented supplement with code and synthetic data generation steps. However, the current experimental design does not isolate the qubit-count effect from input dimensionality, and an internal contradiction about the target variable undermines the quantitative results. As presented, the central claim is not convincingly supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [III.1 and Supplementary 'Synthetic data generation'] The target variable is defined inconsistently. Section III.1 states 'The target variable for this study is cost efficiency, which is a score between 0 and 1,' while the supplementary data-generation instructions (steps 5 and 6) create a feature called cost_efficiency and then define 'Target variable: disruption_impact,' using all columns except cost_efficiency and disruption_impact as features. This contradiction is load-bearing because Section IV.1 reports R2 ≈ 0.79, RMSE ≈ 0.78, and MAE ≈ 0.75 for models trained on the target. For a target bounded in [0,1], RMSE cannot be 0.78 with R2 = 0.79: R2 = 0.79 implies a target variance of about 2.90, which is impossible for a bounded 0–1 variable. The entire quantitative evaluation and the RACE analysis (Section IV.3) depend on which variable was actually predicted, so the manuscript must clarify the target, correct the metrics, or rerun the analysis accordingly.
  2. [III.1, III.2, IV.2] Qubit count is confounded with input dimensionality. Section III.1 states that RFE outputs 4, 6, ..., 16 features for different configurations, and Section III.2 uses the same number of qubits, measuring Pauli-X, -Y, and -Z expectation values per qubit. Therefore the hybrid models receive 3n features (e.g., 12 features for 4 qubits, 48 features for 16 qubits), while the classical models receive only the n original features (as confirmed in Section IV.1: 'Classical models directly used these features'). The Kruskal-Wallis tests in Section IV.2 across qubit configurations consequently test the joint effect of circuit width and feature dimensionality; they cannot attribute observed UQ differences to qubit count. The conclusion in Section V that 'higher qubit configurations enhance model sensitivity to data variability' is therefore unsupported. The experiment needs a control that keeps the number of input features fixed while varying qubits, or a classical baseline trained on the same 3n-dimensional feature set, to separate quantum effects from dimensionality effects.
  3. [IV.2 and V] The interpretation of the qubit-scaling results is internally contradictory. Section IV.2 reports that 'Figure 7 shows a decline in OD samples with more qubits' and concludes that 'higher qubit counts affect uncertainty modelling through feature representation and reduce OD detection,' yet Section V lists as a contribution 'the introduction of qubit scaling as a method to improve outlier detection, showing that higher qubit configurations enhance model sensitivity to data variability.' If the number of detected outliers decreases with qubit count, that is more naturally read as reduced sensitivity, not enhanced sensitivity. The authors need to reconcile these statements and specify the operational meaning of 'sensitivity' in the outlier-detection context, ideally with a precise definition and supporting statistics.
  4. [IV.1 and IV.2] The statistical evidence for 'distinct' or 'enhanced' uncertainty behavior relies on p-values without effect sizes or qualitative comparisons of magnitude. The Wilcoxon tests for BRR (p = 6.08E-51) and QR (p = 9.33E-06) in Section IV.1, and the Kruskal-Wallis tests in Section IV.2, can reach extremely small p-values even for negligible distributional shifts when the sample size is 300. The paper should report effect sizes (e.g., standardized mean differences, rank-biserial correlation) and show that the observed UQ differences are practically meaningful, especially because Table II shows modest differences in PICP and OD counts for several models. Without this, the claim that quantum features 'offer unique predictions' in terms of uncertainty is overstated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and V] The phrase 'unique predictions' is used in the abstract and conclusions, but the paper reports comparable predictive accuracy (R2 ≈ 0.79 across models) and differences in uncertainty, not unique predictions. Consider replacing with 'unique uncertainty estimates' or 'distinct uncertainty behavior'.
  2. [IV.1, third paragraph] There is a missing closing parenthesis in 'quantum models exhibited narrower uncertainty bounds compared to classical models (see Figure 4.' Should be 'see Figure 4).'
  3. [IV.2] The sentence 'HQBRR drops from 27 samples to 22, 18 for qubits 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th and 12th' lists five qubit counts but only three values; it should be rewritten to list the OD count at each qubit configuration explicitly.
  4. [IV.3, Eq. (7)] The RACE formula in Eq. (7) is described as 'derived using [41]', but reference [41] is a CAPM/WACC financial modeling document and does not derive this linear penalty. Either provide an appropriate derivation or rephrase to say the formula is introduced as a risk-adjustment heuristic.
  5. [Supplementary 'Synthetic data generation'] The supplement says the data 'can be generated' but Section IV.1 says the dataset is 'provided as supplementary files.' Clarify whether the actual data files or only the generation code are provided.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Core UQ comparisons are empirical and not circular; the RACE financial-impact analysis is a minor self-definitional step, and the qubit-count/feature-count confound is a validity issue rather than circularity.

  1. self definitional [Section IV.3, Eq. (7) and Figure 8 discussion]
    "For this analysis, a Risk-Adjusted Cost Efficiency (RACE) is defined as a linear penalty formula and derived using [41]. β values for risk-neutral as β = 0, low risk aversion as β = 0.25, moderate risk aversion as β = 0.5, as high risk aversion β = 0.75 to very high risk aversions β = 1.0, were incorporated into the calculation of RACE, as RACE = Actual − β × Uncertainty. (7) ... Figure 8 shows differences in RACE across risk aversion levels for quantum and classical models."

    RACE is literally defined as Actual minus β times Uncertainty. Therefore any difference in the uncertainty estimates between quantum and classical models mechanically produces a difference in RACE for β>0, independent of any empirical relationship between uncertainty and realized cost efficiency. The conclusion that uncertainty impacts quantum and classical models differently is a restatement of the input uncertainties under a user-chosen linear penalty, not a measured financial effect. The hand-set β grid makes the financial-impact comparison an artifact of definition, so this secondary 'derivation' reduces to its own input by construction.

full rationale

The core comparisons of predictive uncertainty are empirical: BRR, QR, RF, and NN and their hybrid versions are fitted to the synthetic data, and the reported uncertainties are computed from the fitted models (Eqs. 1-6). No equation in Section III or IV makes the predicted uncertainty equal to a fitted parameter by construction; the Wilcoxon and Kruskal-Wallis tests are applied to computed outputs. The main methodological weakness is a confound, not a circularity: Section III.1 selects 4,6,...,16 features via RFE, Section III.2 encodes those n features onto n qubits and reads 3n Pauli observables, so the qubit-count sweep simultaneously sweeps raw feature count and quantum feature dimension. This prevents causal attribution of the observed UQ changes to qubits, but it does not make the outputs equal to the inputs by definition. The only definitional step is the RACE transformation in Section IV.3, which is transparent but tautological; that accounts for the nonzero score.

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

The paper contributes an empirical scan, so the central results rest on hand-chosen parameters (beta, cost_efficiency weights, circuit cost weight, IQR threshold) and on several assumptions about the synthetic data and quantum circuit that are not independently validated. The invented entity count is zero.

free parameters (4)
  • Beta risk aversion levels (beta) = 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0
    Chosen by hand in Section IV.3 for the RACE formula (Eq. 7); the relative difference and qubit-scaling results depend on these values.
  • Cost_efficiency weighting coefficients = Not specified
    The supplement says cost_efficiency is a weighted sum of cost features plus random noise, but the weights and noise level are not given; these determine the target variable and hence all results.
  • Diversity penalty weight in quantum circuit cost = Not specified
    Section III.2 minimizes mutual information loss plus a diversity penalty; the relative weight is not stated, and it controls the optimized feature map.
  • IQR multiplier for uncertainty-based outlier detection = Not specified
    Section III.7 uses dynamically computed thresholds via IQR; the standard multiplier (often 1.5) is not stated, which changes OD2 counts.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The synthetic data generation procedure (Poisson, normal, uniform distributions) produces data representative of a supply chain digital twin.
    Section III.1 and supplement; the application claim to real supply chains depends on this representativeness.
  • ad hoc to paper The chosen quantum circuit ansatz provides a meaningful feature transformation whose expressivity increases with qubit count.
    Section III.2; no theoretical justification is given for this exact gate sequence; the observed UQ differences are attributed to it.
  • ad hoc to paper For Bayesian ridge regression, aleatoric uncertainty is sigma^2 = 1/alpha and epistemic uncertainty is X*Sigma*X^T (Eqs. 1-2).
    This decomposition is cited to a blog post [35], not a standard Bayesian treatment; using it changes the reported uncertainty values.
  • standard math The Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests apply to the compared model outputs as independent samples.
    Used in Section III.8; standard nonparametric assumptions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Uncertainty in Supply Chain Digital Twins: A Quantum-Classical Hybrid Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YCORC4YA

@misc{pith2026241110254,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Uncertainty in Supply Chain Digital Twins: A Quantum-Classical Hybrid Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YCORC4YA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10254}
}
read the original abstract

This study investigates uncertainty quantification (UQ) using quantum-classical hybrid machine learning (ML) models for applications in complex and dynamic fields, such as attaining resiliency in supply chain digital twins and financial risk assessment. Although quantum feature transformations have been integrated into ML models for complex data tasks, a gap exists in determining their impact on UQ within their hybrid architectures (quantum-classical approach). This work applies existing UQ techniques for different models within a hybrid framework, examining how quantum feature transformation affects uncertainty propagation. Increasing qubits from 4 to 16 shows varied model responsiveness to outlier detection (OD) samples, which is a critical factor for resilient decision-making in dynamic environments. This work shows how quantum computing techniques can transform data features for UQ, particularly when combined with classical methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10254 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An exemplary overview of the supply chain with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A detailed layout for the quantum-classical hybrid setup, including data pre-processing, feature selection, and quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Actual vs. predicted comparison for classical and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of predictive uncertainty for classical and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Impact of increasing qubit count on uncertainty prop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: RACE variation with increasing qubit count for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of risk-adjusted cost efficiency (RACE) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Data distribution for all features (synthetic data). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Circuit diagram for 6 qubits configuration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Circuit diagram for 8 qubits configuration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Circuit diagram for 10 qubits configuration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Circuit diagram for 12 qubits configuration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Circuit diagram for 14 qubits configuration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Circuit diagram for 16 qubits configuration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Industry 4.0 and industry 5.0—inception, conception and perception,

    X. Xu, Y . Lu, B. V ogel-Heuser, and L. Wang, “Industry 4.0 and industry 5.0—inception, conception and perception,” Journal of manufacturing systems, vol. 61, pp. 530–535, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Developing human capabilities for supply chains: an industry 5.0 perspective,

    S. Modgil, R. K. Singh, and S. Agrawal, “Developing human capabilities for supply chains: an industry 5.0 perspective,” Annals of Operations Research, pp. 1–31, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Industry 5.0: towards a sustainable, human-centric and resilient european industry,

    M. Breque, L. De Nul, A. Petridis et al. , “Industry 5.0: towards a sustainable, human-centric and resilient european industry,” Luxem- bourg, LU: European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, vol. 46, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Predicting the impacts of epidemic outbreaks on global supply chains: A simulation-based analysis on the coronavirus outbreak (covid-19/sars-cov-2) case,

    D. Ivanov, “Predicting the impacts of epidemic outbreaks on global supply chains: A simulation-based analysis on the coronavirus outbreak (covid-19/sars-cov-2) case,” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, vol. 136, p. 101922, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Disruption detection for a cognitive digital supply chain twin using hybrid deep learning,

    M. Ashraf, A. Eltawil, and I. Ali, “Disruption detection for a cognitive digital supply chain twin using hybrid deep learning,” Operational Research, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 1–31, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Supply chain risk management and artificial intelligence: state of the art and future re- search directions,

    G. Baryannis, S. Validi, S. Dani, and G. Antoniou, “Supply chain risk management and artificial intelligence: state of the art and future re- search directions,” International journal of production research, vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 2179–2202, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    A systematic review of the research trends of machine learning in supply chain management,

    D. Ni, Z. Xiao, and M. K. Lim, “A systematic review of the research trends of machine learning in supply chain management,” International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics , vol. 11, pp. 1463–1482, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Quantum computing methods for supply chain management,

    H. Jiang, Z.-J. M. Shen, and J. Liu, “Quantum computing methods for supply chain management,” in 2022 IEEE/ACM 7th Symposium on Edge Computing (SEC). IEEE, 2022, pp. 400–405

    work page 2022

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    A review of predictive uncertainty estimation with machine learning,

    H. Tyralis and G. Papacharalampous, “A review of predictive uncertainty estimation with machine learning,”Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 57, no. 4, p. 94, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    A survey on uncertainty quantification in deep learning for financial time series prediction,

    T. Blasco, J. S. S ´anchez, and V . Garc ´ıa, “A survey on uncertainty quantification in deep learning for financial time series prediction,” Neurocomputing, vol. 576, p. 127339, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Schuld and F

    M. Schuld and F. Petruccione, Machine learning with quantum comput- ers. Springer, 2021, vol. 676

    2021

  4. [12]

    Variational quantum algorithms,

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio et al. , “Variational quantum algorithms,” Nature Reviews Physics , vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 625– 644, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Applying monte carlo dropout to quantify the uncertainty of skip connection-based convolu- tional neural networks optimized by big data,

    A. Choubineh, J. Chen, F. Coenen, and F. Ma, “Applying monte carlo dropout to quantify the uncertainty of skip connection-based convolu- tional neural networks optimized by big data,” Electronics, vol. 12, no. 6, p. 1453, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Uncertainty quantification for digital twins in smart manufacturing and robotics: A review,

    S. Battula, S. Alla, E. Ramana, N. K. Kumar, and S. B. Murthy, “Uncertainty quantification for digital twins in smart manufacturing and robotics: A review,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 2837, no. 1. IOP Publishing, 2024, p. 012059

    2024

  7. [15]

    Modelling and prediction of major soil chemical properties with random forest: Machine learning as tool to understand soil-environment relationships in antarctica,

    R. G. Siqueira, C. M. Moquedace, E. I. Fernandes-Filho, C. E. Schaefer, M. R. Francelino, I. F. Sacramento, and R. F. Michel, “Modelling and prediction of major soil chemical properties with random forest: Machine learning as tool to understand soil-environment relationships i...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Evaluating high-variance leaves as uncertainty measure for random forest regression,

    T.-M. Dutschmann and K. Baumann, “Evaluating high-variance leaves as uncertainty measure for random forest regression,” Molecules, vol. 26, no. 21, p. 6514, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Uncertainty quantification in machine learning for engineering design and health prognostics: A tutorial,

    V . Nemani, L. Biggio, X. Huan, Z. Hu, O. Fink, A. Tran, Y . Wang, X. Zhang, and C. Hu, “Uncertainty quantification in machine learning for engineering design and health prognostics: A tutorial,” Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing , vol. 205, p. 110796, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Diffhybrid-uq: uncertainty quan- tification for differentiable hybrid neural modeling,

    D. Akhare, T. Luo, and J.-X. Wang, “Diffhybrid-uq: uncertainty quan- tification for differentiable hybrid neural modeling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00161, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Quantum approximate bayesian optimization algorithms with two mixers and uncertainty quantification,

    J. E. Kim and Y . Wang, “Quantum approximate bayesian optimization algorithms with two mixers and uncertainty quantification,” IEEE Trans- actions on Quantum Engineering , 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Bayesian quantum neural networks,

    N. Nguyen and K.-C. Chen, “Bayesian quantum neural networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 54 110–54 122, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Quantum conformal prediction for reliable uncertainty quantification in quantum machine learning,

    S. Park and O. Simeone, “Quantum conformal prediction for reliable uncertainty quantification in quantum machine learning,” IEEE Trans- actions on Quantum Engineering , 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Triqxnet: Forecasting dst index from solar wind data using an interpretable parallel classical-quantum framework with uncertainty quantification,

    M. A. Jahin, M. Mridha, Z. Aung, N. Dey, and R. S. Sherratt, “Triqxnet: Forecasting dst index from solar wind data using an interpretable parallel classical-quantum framework with uncertainty quantification,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.06658, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Quantum embeddings for machine learning,

    S. Lloyd, M. Schuld, A. Ijaz, J. Izaac, and N. Killoran, “Quantum embeddings for machine learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.03622 , 2020

    2001 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Kacq-dcnn: Uncertainty-aware interpretable kolmogorov- arnold classical-quantum dual-channel neural network for heart disease detection,

    M. A. Jahin, M. A. Masud, M. F. Mridha, Z. Aung, and N. Dey, “Kacq-dcnn: Uncertainty-aware interpretable kolmogorov- arnold classical-quantum dual-channel neural network for heart disease detection,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.07446

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python,

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V . Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V . Dubourg et al. , “Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python,” the Journal of machine Learning research, vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011

    2011

  18. [26]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press, 2010

    2010

  19. [27]

    Goodfellow, Y

    I. Goodfellow, Y . Bengio, and A. Courville, Deep Learning. MIT Press, 2016, http://www.deeplearningbook.org

    2016

  20. [28]

    Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical com- putations,

    V . Bergholm, J. Izaac, M. Schuld, C. Gogolin, S. Ahmed, V . Ajith, M. S. Alam, G. Alonso-Linaje, B. AkashNarayanan, A. Asadi et al. , “Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical com- putations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.04968 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Quantile regression,

    R. Koenker, “Quantile regression,” Cambridge Univ Pr , 2005

    2005

  22. [30]

    Random forests,

    L. Breiman, “Random forests,” Machine learning , vol. 45, pp. 5–32, 2001

    2001

  23. [31]

    A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection,

    R. Kohavi, “A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection,” Morgan Kaufman Publishing , 1995

    1995

  24. [32]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from over- fitting,

    N. Srivastava, G. Hinton, A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and R. Salakhut- dinov, “Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from over- fitting,” The journal of machine learning research , vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1929–1958, 2014. 9

    1929

  26. [34]

    C. M. Bishop and N. M. Nasrabadi, Pattern recognition and machine learning. Springer, 2006, vol. 4, no. 4

    2006

  27. [35]

    Interpreting uncertainty in bayesian linear regression,

    T. Korbak, “Interpreting uncertainty in bayesian linear regression,” 2020, accessed: 2024-11-12. [Online]. Available: https://tomekkorbak. com/2020/05/29/interpreting-uncertainty-in-bayesian-linear-regression/

    2020

  28. [36]

    Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning,

    Y . Gal and Z. Ghahramani, “Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning,” in international conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2016, pp. 1050–1059

    2016

  29. [37]

    Compre- hensive review of neural network-based prediction intervals and new advances,

    A. Khosravi, S. Nahavandi, D. Creighton, and A. F. Atiya, “Compre- hensive review of neural network-based prediction intervals and new advances,” IEEE Transactions on neural networks , vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 1341–1356, 2011

    2011

  30. [38]

    Hawkins, d. m.: Identification of outliers. chapman and hall, london – new york 1980, 188 s., £ 14, 50,

    G. Enderlein, “Hawkins, d. m.: Identification of outliers. chapman and hall, london – new york 1980, 188 s., £ 14, 50,” Biometrical Journal, vol. 29, pp. 198–198, 1987. [Online]. Available: https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:121985057

    1980

  31. [39]

    Wilcoxon signed-rank test,

    R. F. Woolson, “Wilcoxon signed-rank test,” Encyclopedia of Biostatis- tics, vol. 8, 2005

    2005

  32. [40]

    Methodology and application of the kruskal-wallis test,

    E. Ostertagova, O. Ostertag, and J. Kov ´aˇc, “Methodology and application of the kruskal-wallis test,” Applied mechanics and materials , vol. 611, pp. 115–120, 2014

    2014

  33. [41]

    Financial modeling: Capm & wacc,

    C. L. D. P. U.S. Department of Commerce, “Financial modeling: Capm & wacc,” https://cldp.doc.gov/sites/default/files/PPP%20Authority% 20Financial%20Modeling%20CAPM,%20W ACC,%20and%20Iteration. pdf#:∼:text=Formula%20for%20Expected%20Return%20of%20an% 20Asset%20,%20%28ERm%20%20R...

    2024

  34. [42]

    Gareth, W

    J. Gareth, W. Daniela, H. Trevor, and T. Robert, An introduction to statistical learning: with applications in R . Spinger, 2013

    2013

  35. [43]

    Quantum theory approach to performance enhancement in machine learning,

    M. O. Adebiyi, D. Fatinikun-Olaniyan, F. Osang, and A. A. Adebiyi, “Quantum theory approach to performance enhancement in machine learning,” in 2023 International Conference on Science, Engineering and Business for Sustainable Development Goals (SEB-SDG) , vol. 1. IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–7

    2023

  36. [44]

    A comparative analysis of hybrid-quantum classical neural networks,

    K. Zaman, T. Ahmed, M. A. Hanif, A. Marchisio, and M. Shafique, “A comparative analysis of hybrid-quantum classical neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10540 , 2024. 10 SUPPLEMENTARY FILES AND DATA SYNTHETIC DATA GENERATION The synthetic data can be generated by follow...

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Libraries: Import libraries such as numpy, pandas, and sklearn (for train/test split, pre-processing, classification, regression, etc.)

  38. [46]

    Seed: Set a random seed using np.random.seed() to ensure reproducibility of results

  39. [47]

    Generate synthetic dataset: • Create product_demand using a Poisson distribution. • Create features such as inventory_levels, lead_time, order_quantity, transportation_costs, storage_costs, production_costs, and sales_price using normal distributions with different means and s...

  40. [48]

    Label encode categorical features: Convert the categorical features such as weather_conditions and market_trends into a numerical format using LabelEncoder

  41. [49]

    Create a new feature for cost efficiency: Compute cost_efficiency as a weighted sum of several cost features such as production, transportation, storage, and labour costs with added random noise:

  42. [50]

    • Target variable: disruption_impact

    Define the feature columns and target variable: • Feature columns: All columns except cost_efficiency and disruption_impact. • Target variable: disruption_impact

  43. [51]

    Split the dataset: Split the dataset into training and testing sets, allocating 70% to training and 30% to testing

  44. [52]

    • Transform both the training and testing data using the fitted scaler

    Standardise the feature columns: Use StandardScaler to normalise the feature columns: • Fit the scaler on the training data. • Transform both the training and testing data using the fitted scaler. A distribution of such generated data is given in Figure 10. Fig. 10: Data distr...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.