Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Lie-Equivariant Quantum Graph Neural Networks

T0 review · 2 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 A Lorentz-equivariant quantum graph neural network matches or slightly beats the classical LorentzNet at quark-gluon jet discrimination in noiseless simulation.

desk verdict A useful proof-of-principle for Lorentz-equivariant quantum GNNs, but the central parity claim rests on a single unquantified run and needs a proper empirical section before it can be endorsed. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15315 v1 pith:GBXKOTDM submitted 2024-11-22 quant-ph cs.LGhep-exhep-ph

Jogi Suda Neto , Roy T. Forestano , Sergei Gleyzer , Kyoungchul Kong , Konstantin T. Matchev , Katia Matcheva This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.LGhep-exhep-ph
keywords Lorentzequivariancequantumgraphneuralnetworksjettaggingquark-gluondiscriminationvariationalcircuitsgeometricdeeplearningparticlephysicsinvarianttheory
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 tries to establish that a quantum graph neural network can respect the same Lorentz symmetry that makes the classical LorentzNet effective for jet tagging, without losing accuracy. The authors build a Lie-equivariant quantum GNN by replacing the four learned functions inside LorentzNet with small variational quantum circuits, creating the Lorentz-Equivariant Quantum Block. Their experiments on quark-gluon jet discrimination show the quantum model performing on par with or slightly better than the classical LorentzNet in noiseless simulation. The significance is practical: if the result holds, symmetry-preserving quantum models become a credible alternative for LHC data analysis and for resource-constrained quantum machine learning.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Lorentz-Equivariant Quantum Block (LEQB): a graph block identical in form to LorentzNet's update equations, but with the multilayer perceptrons replaced by six-qubit variational circuits consisting of a Hadamard layer, $R_Y$ angle encoding, and two trainable layers of entangling gates with parameterized $R_Y$ rotations. It carries the argument by keeping coordinate updates linear in the input coordinates with scalar coefficients, so that the required equivariance follows from the fact that the message depends only on Lorentz-invariant scalars. Invariant theory, the principle that equivariant maps can be built from scalar invariants, is the theoretical basis for treating the noncompact Lorentz group this way.

What would settle it

Run the trained LEQB on a jet and on the same jet with every constituent four-momentum transformed by a fixed Lorentz boost; compare the updated coordinates $x_i^{l+1}$. If the two outputs are not related by the same boost, the claimed equivariance is false. This is a purely classical check: with fixed trained parameters, the variational circuits are deterministic scalar functions, so the check can be done in exact simulation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the Lorentz-Equivariant Quantum Block (LEQB), a graph update in which the four learned functions $\phi_e$, $\phi_x$, $\phi_h$, and $\phi_m$ are variational quantum circuits, reproduces the performance of the classical LorentzNet for quark-gluon jet tagging. The coordinate update takes the form $x_i^{l+1}=x_i^l+c\sum_j \phi_x(m_{ij}^l)\,x_j^l$, and the edge message $m_{ij}^l$ is computed only from Lorentz-invariant quantities: the squared Minkowski norm $\|x_i-x_j\|^2$ and the Minkowski inner product $\langle x_i,x_j\rangle$. Since the quantum modules are treated as scalar-valued functions of these invariants, the block remains equivariant under Lorentz transformations by construction. On the Pythia8 quark-gluon jet dataset (12,500 jets), the fully quantum model reaches accuracy comparable to or slightly better than LorentzNet, with 592 trainable parameters against LorentzNet's 1088, in idealized noiseless infinite-shot simulation.

Load-bearing premise

The equivariance argument assumes each variational circuit returns one deterministic real number used to rescale a particle momentum, and the paper never states the measurement or post-processing step that produces that number.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A Lorentz-equivariant quantum GNN can match the classical LorentzNet on quark-gluon jet discrimination, so symmetry-preserving quantum models do not necessarily sacrifice accuracy.
  • The fully quantum model does so with fewer trainable parameters (592 versus 1088), making it a candidate for resource-constrained quantum settings.
  • Because the message function uses only Lorentz-invariant inputs (Minkowski norms and inner products), the equivariance proof of the classical architecture carries over to the quantum modules whenever those modules output scalars.
  • The noiseless infinite-shot results establish the baseline performance that any real-hardware implementation of the LEQB would need to approach.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same quantum substitution should transfer to other Lie-equivariant GNNs whose updates multiply coordinates by scalar functions, for example E(n)-equivariant networks, because the scalar-output structure is all that is needed for equivariance.
  • A clean stress test would train the fully quantum model on jets transformed by random Lorentz boosts and check that test accuracy is unchanged; exact equivariance predicts no change in noiseless simulation.
  • Because the simulations assume infinite shots and zero noise, the parity with LorentzNet is a ceiling: real-hardware operation with finite shots and noise would need error mitigation to approach the same accuracy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces Lie-EQGNN, a quantum graph neural network for quark-gluon jet tagging, obtained by replacing the classical multilayer perceptrons (phi_e, phi_x, phi_h, phi_m) in LorentzNet with variational quantum circuits. It reports training and validation accuracy/loss curves for several partially and fully quantized variants and claims that the performance is comparable to or slightly better than the classical LorentzNet in noiseless simulation. The paper includes a public code repository and frames the work as a step toward symmetry-preserving quantum machine learning for LHC physics.

Significance. If substantiated, the result would be a useful existence proof that variational circuits can substitute for classical MLPs inside an equivariant jet-tagging architecture without degrading accuracy, and the public code release is a concrete strength. However, the empirical claim currently rests on unquantified single-run curves, and the quantum readout is underspecified, so the significance cannot be fully assessed from the manuscript alone. The equivariance construction itself is a straightforward adaptation of LorentzNet and is plausible.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5, Figures 4 and 5, Table 1] The central conclusion in Section 6 ('comparable to or slightly better than LorentzNet') is not supported by the reported experiments. Only training and validation accuracy and loss curves from what appears to be a single noiseless run are shown; no test-set accuracy, AUC, standard deviation, or repeated-seed statistics are reported anywhere. Since the variational circuits are randomly initialized and the full-quantum model has 592 trainable parameters versus LorentzNet's 1088, the observed separation in the learning curves could be attributable to initialization luck or optimization details rather than to the quantum architecture. The authors should provide final test metrics with multiple seeds and error bars (or at least a table of mean plus standard deviation) before the claim of parity can be assessed.
  2. [Section 4.4, Figure 2, Equations (2)-(4)] For the Lorentz-equivariant update to hold, the quantum circuits replacing phi_e, phi_x, phi_h, and phi_m must behave as deterministic functions returning real scalars (or vectors of scalars), because the coordinate update in Eq. (2) multiplies x_j by the scalar phi_x(m_ij). The manuscript never specifies the measurement observable, the readout strategy, or how the 6-qubit circuit output is post-processed into the scalar used in the update and into the multi-component outputs of phi_e and phi_h. Without this specification, the equivariance claim is not fully verifiable and the experiments are not reproducible from the text; the paper should state the measurement and post-processing explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.4, Equations (2) and (3)] The summation indices in Eqs. (2) and (3) are inconsistent: Eq. (2) sums over i while using x_j on the right-hand side, and Eq. (3) contains an undefined summation index. The intended update over neighboring particles should be written with a clear index (for example, summing over j in the neighborhood of i) to remove ambiguity.
  2. [Section 3 and Figure 2] The manuscript does not specify how raw particle features (pT, eta, phi, and scalar features such as particle ID and mass) are preprocessed before being encoded as RY rotation angles. Since RY angles are periodic and the feature scales vary widely, a normalization or scaling step is needed for the encoding to be meaningful; the authors should state the exact preprocessing used.
  3. [Section 4.4, Table 1] The parameter counts in Table 1 are reported without a description of what is counted (for example, whether bias terms are included and how the quantum circuit parameters are counted). This makes it difficult to interpret the comparison between the quantum and classical models.
  4. [Section 2, paragraph 2] There is a typographical error in the sentence 'the f holds the desirable property of equivariance'; it should read 'f holds the desirable property'.
  5. [Section 5] The paper does not report any resource estimates such as the number of circuit executions, wall-clock time, or qubit counts used in the simulations, despite discussing quantum utility and the NISQ era in the introduction; adding these details would strengthen the practical claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is an empirical benchmark against an external classical model, and the equivariance lemma cited from prior work is an independent, parameter-free algebraic fact.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical comparison: Lie-EQGNN, formed by replacing the classical MLPs phi_e, phi_x, phi_h, phi_m in LorentzNet with variational circuits, is reported to perform on par with or slightly better than LorentzNet on quark-gluon jet discrimination. This is a measured outcome, not a quantity forced by construction, and it is benchmarked against an externally published classical model, LorentzNet [25], on a public dataset, so the claim is externally falsifiable rather than coded into the definitions. The equivariance of the coordinate update in Eq. (2) is inherited from the standard EGNN update in Eq. (1); the paper cites Appendix A of Ref. [19] for the proof. Although Ref. [19] shares authors with this paper, the citation is not circular in the prohibited sense: the lemma is a parameter-free algebraic statement whose assumptions (invariance of the Euclidean/Minkowski norm under the relevant group action) do not include the target result, and the same coordinate-update construction appears in the independently published LorentzNet paper. The quantum modules are not fitted to LorentzNet's outputs, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to forbid alternatives. The manuscript's genuine weaknesses, such as the absence of repeated-seed statistics, error bars, or final test metrics, and the unspecified measurement/post-processing that turns a quantum circuit output into the scalar phi_x, are concerns about statistical support and reproducibility, not about circularity. No step in the claimed derivation reduces to its own input by construction.

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

No new particles or forces are introduced. The architecture includes learned circuit weights and hand-chosen hyperparameters, but no theory-specific fitted constants. The main unstated assumptions are the scalar-valued readout of the quantum circuits, the angle encoding of unbounded features, and the fidelity of noiseless simulation.

free parameters (3)
  • Trainable variational circuit parameters (theta_1 through theta_12 per layer) = Trained on 10,000 jets; values not reported
    The quantum ansatz in Fig. 2 has 12 RY rotation parameters per layer for the 6-qubit circuit shown; the phi_e, phi_h, phi_m, phi_x modules each train such parameters. The performance parity claim emerges only after fitting these weights, so the fitted values are central to the empirical claim but not reported.
  • Learning rate gamma and weight decay lambda = gamma=1e-3, lambda=1e-2
    Fixed by hand across all models in Section 5; standard AdamW settings, not tuned per model, but they affect the comparison.
  • Number of variational layers L and qubits = L=2, 6 qubits in Fig. 2; total parameters vary per module (Table 1)
    Architectural choices made without ablation; the full-quantum model has 592 parameters versus LorentzNet's 1088.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Lorentz-equivariant coordinate and scalar update equations (Eqs. 2 to 4), taken from LorentzNet, preserve equivariance when the functions phi are replaced by quantum circuits.
    Section 4.4 and Fig. 3 assert the LEQB ensures equivariance, but no proof is given; the proof must be inherited from LorentzNet [25] and invariant theory [41,42], and the quantum circuits must behave as scalar-valued functions.
  • ad hoc to paper Raw particle features can be encoded as RY rotation angles in Fig. 2 without an explicit preprocessing step.
    The paper does not state how 4-momentum components (GeV-scale) and scalar features are scaled into the periodic angle domain; the encoding is load-bearing for the model's representational capacity.
  • domain assumption Noiseless, infinite-shot simulation is a faithful proxy for the quantum model's performance.
    Section 5 explicitly idealizes the simulation; the conclusion about a viable alternative assumes noise on real hardware would not erase the observed parity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lie-Equivariant Quantum Graph Neural Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GBXKOTDM

@misc{pith2026241115315,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lie-Equivariant Quantum Graph Neural Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GBXKOTDM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15315}
}
read the original abstract

Discovering new phenomena at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) involves the identification of rare signals over conventional backgrounds. Thus binary classification tasks are ubiquitous in analyses of the vast amounts of LHC data. We develop a Lie-Equivariant Quantum Graph Neural Network (Lie-EQGNN), a quantum model that is not only data efficient, but also has symmetry-preserving properties. Since Lorentz group equivariance has been shown to be beneficial for jet tagging, we build a Lorentz-equivariant quantum GNN for quark-gluon jet discrimination and show that its performance is on par with its classical state-of-the-art counterpart LorentzNet, making it a viable alternative to the conventional computing paradigm.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15315 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The coordinate system (left) used to represent components of the particle momentum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The ansatz used in our work, which consists of a unitary angle encoding followed by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Lorentz-Equivariant Quantum Block (LEQB). This block ensures equivariance in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Classification accuracies for LieEQGNN with quantum architectures in place of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The same as Fig. 4, but showing the training loss (blue dashed line) and the validation loss [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The HL-LHC Project, 2022

    CERN. The HL-LHC Project, 2022. Available online: https://hilumilhc.web.cern.ch/ content/hl-lhc-project (accessed 24 Sep 2023)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Challenges in Monte Carlo Event Generator Software for High- Luminosity LHC

    Simone Amoroso et al. Challenges in Monte Carlo Event Generator Software for High- Luminosity LHC. Comput. Softw. Big Sci., 5(1):12, 2021. doi: 10.1007/s41781-021-00055-1

    doi:10.1007/s41781-021-00055-1 2021

  3. [3]

    A survey of quantum learning theory, Jul 2017

    Srinivasan Arunachalam and Ronald de Wolf. A survey of quantum learning theory, Jul 2017. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1701.06806. 6 Figure 5: The same as Fig. 4, but showing the training loss (blue dashed line) and the validation loss (orange solid line)

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1701.06806 2017

  4. [4]

    Quantum machine learning

    Jacob Biamonte, Peter Wittek, Nicola Pancotti, Patrick Rebentrost, Nathan Wiebe, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum machine learning. Nature, 549(7671):195–202, Sep 2017. doi: 10.1038/ nature23474. URL https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature23474

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Quantum machine learning in feature hilbert spaces

    Maria Schuld and Nathan Killoran. Quantum machine learning in feature hilbert spaces. Phys. Rev. Lett., 122:040504, Feb 2019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.040504. URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.040504

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.040504 2019

  6. [6]

    Mangini, F

    S. Mangini, F. Tacchino, D. Gerace, D. Bajoni, and C. Macchiavello. Quantum computing models for artificial neural networks. Europhysics Letters, 134(1):10002, Apr 2021. doi: 10.1209/0295-5075/134/10002. URL https://doi.org/10.1209%2F0295-5075%2F134% 2F10002

    doi:10.1209/0295-5075/134/10002 2021

  7. [7]

    A rigorous and robust quan- tum speed-up in supervised machine learning

    Yunchao Liu, Srinivasan Arunachalam, and Kristan Temme. A rigorous and robust quan- tum speed-up in supervised machine learning. Nature Physics, 17(9):1013–1017, Sep 2021. ISSN 1745-2481. doi: 10.1038/s41567-021-01287-z. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41567-021-01287-z

    doi:10.1038/s41567-021-01287-z 2021

  8. [8]

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Michael Broughton, Jordan Cotler, Sitan Chen, Jerry Li, Masoud Mohseni, Hartmut Neven, Ryan Babbush, Richard Kueng, John Preskill, and Jarrod R. McClean. Quantum advantage in learning from experiments. Science, 376(6598):1182–1186, Jun 2022. doi: 10.1126/science.abn7293. URL https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.abn7293

    doi:10.1126/science.abn7293 2022

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Caro, Hsin-Yuan Huang, M

    Matthias C. Caro, Hsin-Yuan Huang, M. Cerezo, Kunal Sharma, Andrew Sornborger, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J. Coles. Generalization in quantum machine learning from few training data. Nature Communications, 13(1):4919, Aug 2022. ISSN 2041-1723. doi: 10.1038/ s41467-022-32550-3....

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    David J. Gross. The role of symmetry in fundamental physics. PNAS, 93(25):14256–14259, December 1996. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.25.14256. URL https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. 93.25.14256

    1996 doi

  3. [11]

    Perceptron: an introduction to computational geometry

    Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert. Perceptron: an introduction to computational geometry. The MIT Press, Cambridge, expanded edition, 19(88):2, 1969

    1969

  4. [12]

    Bronstein, Joan Bruna, Taco Cohen, and Petar Veliˇckovi´c

    Michael M. Bronstein, Joan Bruna, Taco Cohen, and Petar Veliˇckovi´c. Geometric deep learning: Grids, groups, graphs, geodesics, and gauges, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2104. 13478

    2021

  5. [13]

    Forestano, Konstantin T

    Roy T. Forestano, Konstantin T. Matchev, Katia Matcheva, Alexander Roman, Eyup B. Unlu, and Sarunas Verner. Deep learning symmetries and their Lie groups, algebras, and subalgebras from first principles. Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech., 4(2):025027, 2023. doi: 10.1088/2632-2153/acd989

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Forestano, Konstantin T

    Alexander Roman, Roy T. Forestano, Konstantin T. Matchev, Katia Matcheva, and Eyup B. Unlu. Oracle-preserving latent flows. Symmetry, 15(7):1352, July 2023. doi: 10.3390/sym15071352

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Forestano, Konstantin T

    Roy T. Forestano, Konstantin T. Matchev, Katia Matcheva, Alexander Roman, Eyup B. Unlu, and Sarunas Verner. Discovering sparse representations of Lie groups with machine learning. Phys. Lett. B, 844:138086, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138086

    2023

  8. [16]

    Forestano, Konstantin T

    Roy T. Forestano, Konstantin T. Matchev, Katia Matcheva, Alexander Roman, Eyup B. Unlu, and Sarunas Verner. Accelerated discovery of machine-learned symmetries: Deriving the exceptional Lie groups G2, F4 and E6. Phys. Lett. B, 847:138266, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb. 2023.138266

    2023

  9. [17]

    Forestano, Konstantin T

    Roy T. Forestano, Konstantin T. Matchev, Katia Matcheva, Alexander Roman, Eyup B. Unlu, and Sarunas Verner. Identifying the group-theoretic structure of machine-learned symmetries. Phys. Lett. B, 847:138306, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138306

    2023

  10. [18]

    Z2 × Z2 Equivariant Quantum Neural Networks: Benchmarking against Classical Neural Networks

    Zhongtian Dong et al. Z2 × Z2 Equivariant Quantum Neural Networks: Benchmarking against Classical Neural Networks. Axioms, 13(3):188, 2024. doi: 10.3390/axioms13030188

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    Forestano et al

    Roy T. Forestano et al. A Comparison between Invariant and Equivariant Classical and Quantum Graph Neural Networks. Axioms, 13(3):160, 2024. doi: 10.3390/axioms13030160

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    Unlu et al

    Eyup B. Unlu et al. Hybrid Quantum Vision Transformers for Event Classification in High Energy Physics. Axioms, 13(3):187, 2024. doi: 10.3390/axioms13030187

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Quantum Vision Transformers for Quark–Gluon Classification

    Marçal Comajoan Cara et al. Quantum Vision Transformers for Quark–Gluon Classification. Axioms, 13(5):323, 2024. doi: 10.3390/axioms13050323

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Matchev, and Katia Matcheva

    Alessandro Tesi, Gopal Ramesh Dahale, Sergei Gleyzer, Kyoungchul Kong, Tom Magorsch, Konstantin T. Matchev, and Katia Matcheva. Quantum Attention for Vision Transformers in High Energy Physics, 11 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.13520

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Everything is connected: Graph neural networks

    Petar Veliˇckovi´c. Everything is connected: Graph neural networks. Current Opinion in Structural Biology, 79:102538, April 2023. ISSN 0959-440X. doi: 10.1016/j.sbi.2023.102538. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2023.102538

    2023

  16. [24]

    Graph neural networks in particle physics

    Jonathan Shlomi, Peter Battaglia, and Jean-Roch Vlimant. Graph neural networks in particle physics. Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 2(2):021001, January 2021. ISSN 2632-

    2021

  17. [25]

    An efficient lorentz equivariant graph neural network for jet tagging

    Shiqi Gong, Qi Meng, Jue Zhang, Huilin Qu, Congqiao Li, Sitian Qian, Weitao Du, Zhi- Ming Ma, and Tie-Yan Liu. An efficient lorentz equivariant graph neural network for jet tagging. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2022(7), July 2022. ISSN 1029-8479. doi: 10.1007/ jhep07(2022)0...

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    Larkoski, Ian Moult, and Benjamin Nachman

    Andrew J. Larkoski, Ian Moult, and Benjamin Nachman. Jet Substructure at the Large Hadron Collider: A Review of Recent Advances in Theory and Machine Learning. Phys. Rept., 841: 1–63, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2019.11.001. 8

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Jet Substructure at the Large Hadron Collider: Experimental Review

    Roman Kogler et al. Jet Substructure at the Large Hadron Collider: Experimental Review. Rev. Mod. Phys., 91(4):045003, 2019. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.91.045003

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    Springer, 2019

    Simone Marzani, Gregory Soyez, and Michael Spannowsky.Looking inside jets: an introduction to jet substructure and boosted-object phenomenology , volume 958. Springer, 2019. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-15709-8

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    Doherty, Angus Mingare, Jason C

    Nils Herrmann, Daanish Arya, Marcus W. Doherty, Angus Mingare, Jason C. Pillay, Florian Preis, and Stefan Prestel. Quantum utility – definition and assessment of a practical quantum advantage. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Software , pages 162–174. IEEE, Jul...

    2023

  22. [30]

    Group theory: A physicist’s survey

    Pierre Ramond. Group theory: A physicist’s survey. Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  23. [31]

    Lie Algebras In Particle Physics : from Isospin To Unified Theories

    Howard Georgi. Lie Algebras In Particle Physics : from Isospin To Unified Theories. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, 2000. ISBN 978-0-429-96776-4, 978-0-367-09172-9, 978-0-429-49921-0, 978-0-7382-0233-4. doi: 10.1201/9780429499210

    2000 doi

  24. [32]

    Lek-Heng Lim and Bradley J. Nelson. What is an equivariant neural network? CoRR, abs/2205.07362, 2022. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2205.07362. URLhttps://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2205.07362

    2022 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    Ecker, Fabian H

    Alexander S. Ecker, Fabian H. Sinz, Emmanouil Froudarakis, Paul G. Fahey, Santiago A. Cadena, Edgar Y . Walker, Erick Cobos, Jacob Reimer, Andreas S. Tolias, and Matthias Bethge. A rotation-equivariant convolutional neural network model of primary visual cortex. In Inter- nati...

    2019

  26. [34]

    Invariant and equivariant graph networks

    Haggai Maron, Heli Ben-Hamu, Nadav Shamir, and Yaron Lipman. Invariant and equivariant graph networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=Syx72jC9tm

    2019

  27. [35]

    E(n) equivariant graph neu- ral networks

    Victor Garcia Satorras, Emiel Hoogeboom, and Max Welling. E(n) equivariant graph neu- ral networks. ArXiv, abs/2102.09844, 2021. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:231979049

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Komiske, Eric M

    Patrick T. Komiske, Eric M. Metodiev, and Jesse Thaler. Energy flow networks: deep sets for particle jets. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2019(1), jan 2019. doi: 10.1007/jhep01(2019)121. URL https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fjhep01%282019%29121

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    Particle Cloud Generation with Message Passing Generative Adversarial Networks

    Raghav Kansal, Javier Duarte, Hao Su, Breno Orzari, Thiago Tomei, Maurizio Pierini, Mary Touranakou, Jean-Roch Vlimant, and Dimitrios Gunopulos. Particle Cloud Generation with Message Passing Generative Adversarial Networks. In 35th Conference on Neural Information Processing ...

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Quantum graph neural networks, 2019

    Guillaume Verdon, Trevor McCourt, Enxhell Luzhnica, Vikash Singh, Stefan Leichenauer, and Jack Hidary. Quantum graph neural networks, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1909. 12264

    2019

  31. [39]

    Finding Exponential Product Formulas of Higher Orders, page 37–68

    Naomichi Hatano and Masuo Suzuki. Finding Exponential Product Formulas of Higher Orders, page 37–68. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, November 2005. ISBN 9783540315155. doi: 10.1007/11526216_2. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11526216_2

    2005 doi

  32. [40]

    Nguyen, Louis Schatzki, Paolo Braccia, Michael Ragone, Patrick J

    Quynh T. Nguyen, Louis Schatzki, Paolo Braccia, Michael Ragone, Patrick J. Coles, Frédéric Sauvage, Martín Larocca, and M. Cerezo. Theory for equivariant quantum neural networks. PRX Quantum, 5(2), May 2024. ISSN 2691-3399. doi: 10.1103/prxquantum.5.020328. URL http://dx.doi.o...

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    Hogg, Kate Storey-Fisher, Weichi Yao, and Ben Blum-Smith

    Soledad Villar, David W. Hogg, Kate Storey-Fisher, Weichi Yao, and Ben Blum-Smith. Scalars are universal: Equivariant machine learning, structured like classical physics, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.06610

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Machine learning and invariant theory, 2023

    Ben Blum-Smith and Soledad Villar. Machine learning and invariant theory, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14991. 9

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization, 2019

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization, 2019. URL https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1711.05101

    2019 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    Sgdr: Stochastic gradient descent with warm restarts, 2017

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Sgdr: Stochastic gradient descent with warm restarts, 2017. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.03983

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Accurate, large minibatch sgd: training imagenet in 1 hour, 2017

    P Goyal. Accurate, large minibatch sgd: training imagenet in 1 hour, 2017. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/1706.02677. 10

    2017 arXiv

  38. [2153]

    URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2632-2153/ abbf9a

    doi: 10.1088/2632-2153/abbf9a. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2632-2153/ abbf9a

    doi

Pith tools

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