Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Unsupervised Quantum Anomaly Detection on Noisy Quantum Processors

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Quantum kernel one-class SVMs beat the classical baseline on every fraud ratio in a credit-card dataset, in simulation and on noisy hardware.

desk verdict A useful empirical benchmark of qrbf-OCSVM on financial transaction data, but the 'all anomaly regimes' claim is under-powered and the classical baseline may be under-tuned. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16970 v1 pith:7HP7VJ65 submitted 2024-11-25 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.supr-conphysics.app-ph

Daniel Pranjić , Florian Knäble , Philipp Kunst , Damian Kutzias , Dennis Klau , Christian Tutschku , Lars Simon , Micha Kraus
show 1 more author
Ali Abedi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.supr-conphysics.app-ph
keywords quantummachinelearningone-classsupportvectoranomalydetectionkernelsprojectedpartialstatetomographyfinancialfraudNISQhardware
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

The paper sets out to show that a one-class support vector machine (OCSVM) equipped with a projected quantum radial basis function kernel generalizes better than the classical rbf-OCSVM on a realistic financial fraud-detection dataset, across every anomaly ratio tested. The authors simulate the quantum kernels from one-qubit reduced density matrices and then estimate them on trapped-ion and superconducting quantum processors using partial state tomography, finding that the quantum model's F1 advantage persists on hardware, with fluctuations dominated by calibration drift rather than finite sampling. The result matters because it is a concrete, unsupervised use case where quantum kernel methods appear to deliver better generalization in a small-data, high-anomaly regime on today's noisy devices.

What carries the argument

The central object is the projected quantum radial basis function kernel, defined as $K_\gamma(x_i,x_j) = \exp\left(-\gamma \sum_{k=1}^N \|\rho_k(x_i)-\rho_k(x_j)\|_F^2\right)$, where $\rho_k$ is the one-qubit reduced density matrix of the kth qubit after encoding data point $x$ into a hardware-efficient feature map. These 1Q-RDMs are estimated by partial state tomography using Pauli basis measurements (classical shadows), which requires only single-qubit rotations and is compatible with current gate-based hardware. The kernel is then used in the standard OCSVM dual problem. The tomography protocol is the workhorse of the paper: its precision on real devices, limited by shot count and calibration drift, determines how faithfully the quantum kernel approximates the noise-free one.

What would settle it

Run the identical dataset and splits but perform a grid search over gamma and nu separately at each anomaly ratio for both the classical rbf-OCSVM and the qrbf-OCSVM; if any classical hyperparameter setting yields a test F1 equal to or higher than the best quantum model, the paper's all-regime generalization claim fails on this dataset.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the 20-dimensional feature-engineered Sparkov credit-card dataset, the paper finds that the qrbf-OCSVM achieves higher test F1 scores than the classical rbf-OCSVM for all anomaly ratios from r=0.01 to r=0.2, with estimated probabilities of beating the classical model above 64% at the highest anomaly ratio. The same ordering is observed in a single hardware execution at r=0.2 on ion-trap and superconducting QPUs, where the quantum models' F1 scores hover around the noise-free simulation values and sometimes exceed them on the test split; the authors explicitly caution that a single execution does not permit rigorous statistical evaluation. They attribute the advantage to the structure of the projected quantum feature map, since finite-sampling variance is small, and they identify calibration drift during long experiments as the main source of hardware-induced fluctuation.

Load-bearing premise

The claim depends on comparing both models under a single fixed hyperparameter pair (nu=0.1, gamma=0.1) chosen by one grid search at one anomaly ratio; if the classical rbf kernel were tuned at every anomaly ratio, it might match or beat the quantum model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the tested dataset, the quantum kernel's test F1 advantage holds at every anomaly ratio, so the benefit appears across the whole operating range rather than at one tuned point.
  • The advantage is present in noise-free simulation, so it originates from the quantum feature map's geometry, not from hardware noise or sampling artifacts.
  • Real-hardware F1 scores stay close to simulation, meaning current NISQ devices can run the full pipeline without destroying the quantum kernel's signal.
  • Tomography precision saturates beyond roughly 10^3 shots on the superconducting QPU, and total experiment duration matters because calibration drifts; shorter, faster experiments are a practical requirement for reliable quantum kernels.
  • Because the OCSVM is unsupervised and the projected kernel uses only single-qubit reduced density matrices, the approach is directly applicable to other rare-event detection problems, such as new physics searches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The comparison fixes one hyperparameter pair (nu=0.1, gamma=0.1) for all anomaly ratios and both kernels; since the pair was selected at r=10^-2, a per-ratio grid search for the classical baseline could close or reverse the gap, so the universal-superiority claim is conditional on this baseline choice.
  • The observed advantage may be tied to the synthetic dataset's structure, including step-function fraud rates and strong categorical signals; re-running the protocol on real transaction data or on datasets with different correlation geometry would delimit how generic the gain is.
  • Because the 1Q-RDMs are measured once and the kernel is constructed a posteriori, the same tomography data supports hyperparameter search over gamma without rerunning the circuits, which is a practical cost advantage for deployment.
  • The calibration-drift result implies that reducing wall-clock experiment time—by measurement-efficient tomography or by less circuit repetition—may matter more than incremental improvements in gate fidelity for quantum kernel methods on current hardware.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents an unsupervised anomaly detection pipeline based on one-class SVM with projected quantum kernels (qrbf) defined via one-qubit reduced density matrices. Using a synthetic credit card fraud dataset, the authors compare qrbf-OCSVM with classical RBF-OCSVM across anomaly ratios in simulation, and test the qrbf models on trapped-ion and superconducting quantum processors. They report that quantum-enhanced models achieve better F1 scores in all anomaly regimes and that the advantage persists on hardware.

Significance. If the claims are established, the paper would provide a valuable empirical benchmark for projected quantum kernels in a realistic unsupervised learning task, including one of the first multi-platform hardware comparisons. The systematic treatment of partial state tomography and the explicit acknowledgement of hardware-related limitations are commendable. However, the statistical methodology for the central comparison is flawed, and the experimental evidence is too limited to support the strong claims in the abstract.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.A, Eq. (14) and Table 1] Equation (14) is mathematically inconsistent: with the normalization constant N as defined, the right-hand side equals 1 for any μ̃ and σ̃, because the integral of the Gaussian numerator over [0,1] is exactly √(2πσ̃²)[Φ((1−μ̃)/σ̃)−Φ(−μ̃/σ̃)]. The reported probabilities in Table 1 therefore cannot stem from this formula. Moreover, the computation uses only 10 data splits, and no confidence intervals or hypothesis tests are provided. The evidence for the superiority of qrbf-OCSVM over rbf-OCSVM at r=0.2 is thus not statistically quantified as claimed.
  2. [Section III.A, hyperparameter selection and feature scaling] The comparison between qrbf-OCSVM and rbf-OCSVM is not controlled. The hyperparameters (ν,γ)=(0.1,0.1) are selected from a single grid search at r=10⁻² (Sec. III.A) and applied to every anomaly ratio and both kernel types. The two kernels operate on different feature spaces: the qrbf kernel uses the Frobenius norm of 1Q-RDM differences (Eq. 12), which gives a bounded, roughly homogeneous coordinate set, whereas the classical rbf kernel uses the raw 20 features listed in Table 3, which include dollar amounts, latitudes, longitudes, and counts on very different scales. No feature standardization is reported in Appendix B. The same γ can therefore be appropriate for one kernel and pathological for the other. The authors should tune kernels separately per r (or justify the common γ), and should report whether the classical baseline's performance changes with scaling.
  3. [Section III.A, Figure 1] For all anomaly ratios except r=0.2, the claimed advantage is based on a single train/test split (Figure 1). No error bars or repeated-split statistics are given for these regimes, so the 'all anomaly regimes' claim is not supported by the data. The paper should either provide repeated splits or cross-validation for every r, or limit the claim to the regime where statistical support exists.
  4. [Abstract and Section III.C] The abstract states that the quantum-enhanced OCSVMs lead to better generalization 'in all anomaly regimes' and that results were 'experimentally validated'. However, the hardware experiments (Sec. III.C) cover only r=0.2, with a single run per platform, and the text explicitly notes that 'this is just one experiment execution ... we can't properly evaluate the models.' The abstract should be aligned with the actual scope of the evidence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II.B] The phrase 'as we we do not optimize' contains a duplicated word 'we' that should be corrected.
  2. [Section III.A] The sentence 'Further decreasing r the F1 score saturates towards F1≈ 0.95.1.' contains a stray '1' at the end.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] The caption refers to 'operator 2-norm differences (cf. Eq. (16))', but Eq. (16) defines the Frobenius norm, not the operator 2-norm.
  4. [General] No statement is provided about data or code availability; making the implementation and the split-specific results publicly available would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the qrbf-OCSVM advantage claim is an externally benchmarked empirical result, not a consequence of fitting or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical comparison: qrbf-OCSVM (Eq. 12, built from 1Q-RDMs obtained via partial tomography in Eq. 13) versus classical rbf-OCSVM, evaluated by F1 (Eq. 11) on train/test splits of the Sparkov dataset. The quantum kernel is not defined in terms of the OCSVM decision function or the F1 target, and no equation equates the qrbf kernel to the classical rbf kernel or to the fitted hyperparameters. The hyperparameter pair (nu=0.1, gamma=0.1) is selected once by grid search at r=10^-2 and then held fixed across anomaly ratios (Sec. III.A); this is a methodological fairness concern about the classical baseline, not a circular reduction, because the reported F1 scores are measured on held-out data rather than derived from the grid-search objective. The only author-overlapping citation [35] is listed among many applications and carries no load-bearing argument, and no uniqueness claim is imported from prior work by the same authors. Hardware results are explicitly limited ('we can't properly evaluate the models... further experimental data analysis is needed'), and the probability calculation in Eq. (14) uses measured F1 means and variances rather than fitting the conclusion. The paper is therefore self-contained against an external benchmark; no prediction reduces by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests mostly on standard QML machinery and two hyperparameters. No new physical entities or forces are postulated. The main auxiliary assumptions are about the representativeness of the synthetic dataset and the fairness of the fixed hyperparameters.

free parameters (2)
  • nu (OCSVM margin parameter) = 0.1
    Chosen by 5-fold cross-validated grid search on the training data at r=10^-2; used for all anomaly ratios and both kernel types (Sec. III.A).
  • gamma (kernel bandwidth) = 0.1
    Chosen by the same grid search for both the rbf and qrbf kernels; the same value is used across all anomaly ratios, which may disadvantage one kernel.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math OCSVM dual formulation and kernel trick
    Used in Sec. II.A to define the classifier and decision function.
  • standard math Projected quantum kernel definition via 1Q-RDMs and partial shadow tomography
    Used in Sec. II.B and II.C to compute kernels from single-qubit reduced density matrices.
  • domain assumption The Sparkov synthetic dataset and the feature engineering, including fraud-rate features computed on the full dataset, provide a meaningful anomaly-detection benchmark
    Defined in App. B; the validity of the central claim depends on this dataset representing a realistic fraud detection scenario.
  • domain assumption The three hardware-efficient feature maps (CX, ECR, RXX) are suitable embeddings for the 20-dimensional financial data
    Defined in App. A; the choice of feature map affects the kernel and therefore the results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unsupervised Quantum Anomaly Detection on Noisy Quantum Processors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7HP7VJ65

@misc{pith2026241116970,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unsupervised Quantum Anomaly Detection on Noisy Quantum Processors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7HP7VJ65}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16970}
}
read the original abstract

Whether in fundamental physics, cybersecurity or finance, the detection of anomalies with machine learning techniques is a highly relevant and active field of research, as it potentially accelerates the discovery of novel physics or criminal activities. We provide a systematic analysis of the generalization properties of the One-Class Support Vector Machine (OCSVM) algorithm, using projected quantum kernels for a realistic dataset of the latter application. These results were both theoretically simulated and experimentally validated on trapped-ion and superconducting quantum processors, by leveraging partial state tomography to obtain precise approximations of the quantum states that are used to estimate the quantum kernels. Moreover, we analyzed both platforms respective hardware-efficient feature maps over a wide range of anomaly ratios and showed that for our financial dataset in all anomaly regimes, the quantum-enhanced OCSVMs lead to better generalization properties compared to the purely classical approach. As such our work bridges the gap between theory and practice in the noisy intermediate scale quantum (NISQ) era and paves the path towards useful quantum applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16970 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. F1 score of the (q)rbf-OCSVM models in dependence of the anomaly ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. State tomography results for a) ρ+ and b) ρT (right) on a simulator with finite-sampling noise (blue) and on a Falcon r2 QPU by IBM Quantum (green). The experiments were repeated 100 times to estimate the standard deviation of the tomography precision. The operator 2-norm differences (cf. Eq. (16)) between the true ρ and ρexp coincide until shots on the order of ≈ 103 . While on the simulator d(ρ, ρexp) continues to… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Hardware benchmark results for the (q)rbf-OCSVM models on a noise-free simulator, ion-trapped (AQT Ibex and IonQ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: b, where RX is transpiled into √ X’s and RZ. Ion trap based quantum computers however employ a different native get set as those on superconducting hardware. AQT uses N = {RX(α), RZ(β), RXX(γ)} , (20) where RZ(λ) = e −i λ 2 Z , RXX(λ) = e −i λ 2 X⊗X . (21) The correspo…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualizations of the feature engineered Sparkov [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The fraud count grouped by hour of day. Clearly the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Heatmap of the PCC values shown in Table 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Intelligence-Guided Adaptive Purification for DDoS-Resilient Quantum Networks: A CUDA-Q based Study

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    IDS-driven adaptive purification in a simulated 8-node quantum repeater chain restores fidelity-qualified entanglement delivery under SSDP-induced degradation (0.098 to 0.344 above-target; oracle 0.335).

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A rigorous and robust quantum speed-up in supervised machine learning

    Yunchao Liu, Srinivasan Arunachalam, and Kristan Temme. “A rigorous and robust quantum speed-up in supervised machine learning”. In: Nature Physics 17.9 (2021), pp. 1013–1017

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. “A quantum approximate optimization algorithm”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 (2014)

    arXiv 2014

  3. [3]

    Quantum machine learning

    Jacob Biamonte et al. “Quantum machine learning”. In: Nature 549.7671 (2017), pp. 195–202

    2017

  4. [4]

    Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations

    Aram W Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd. “Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations”. In: Physical review letters 103.15 (2009), p. 150502

    2009

  5. [5]

    Support vector machines

    Ingo Steinwart and Andreas Christmann. Support vector machines. Springer Science & Business Media, 2008

    2008

  6. [6]

    Learning with kernels: support vector machines, reg- ularization, optimization, and beyond

    Bernhard Schölkopf, Alexander J Smola, Francis Bach, et al. Learning with kernels: support vector machines, reg- ularization, optimization, and beyond. MIT press, 2002

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    Estimating the support of a high-dimensional distribution

    Bernhard Schölkopf et al. “Estimating the support of a high-dimensional distribution”. In: Neural computation 13.7 (2001), pp. 1443–1471

    work page 2001

  8. [8]

    Enhancing one-class support vector machines for unsupervised anomaly detection

    Mennatallah Amer, Markus Goldstein, and Slim Abden- nadher. “Enhancing one-class support vector machines for unsupervised anomaly detection”. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD workshop on outlier detection and description. 2013, pp. 8–15

    work page 2013

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    One- class support vector machines approach to anomaly de- tection

    Maryamsadat Hejazi and Yashwant Prasad Singh. “One- class support vector machines approach to anomaly de- tection”. In: Applied Artificial Intelligence 27.5 (2013), pp. 351–366

    2013

  2. [10]

    Fault detec- tion based on a robust one class support vector machine

    Shen Yin, Xiangping Zhu, and Chen Jing. “Fault detec- tion based on a robust one class support vector machine”. In: Neurocomputing 145 (2014), pp. 263–268

    2014

  3. [12]

    Generalized coherent states, reproducing kernels, and quantum support vector machines

    Rupak Chatterjee and Ting Yu. “Generalized coherent states, reproducing kernels, and quantum support vector machines”. In: arXiv:1612.03713 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Unsuper- vised quantum machine learning for fraud detection

    Oleksandr Kyriienko and Einar B Magnusson. “Unsuper- vised quantum machine learning for fraud detection”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01203 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Power of data in quantum ma- chine learning

    Hsin-Yuan Huang et al. “Power of data in quantum ma- chine learning”. In: Nature Communications 12.1 (2021), p. 2631

    2021

  6. [15]

    Exponential concentration and untrainability in quantum kernel methods

    Supanut Thanasilp et al. “Exponential concentration and untrainability in quantum kernel methods”. In: arXiv:2208.11060 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Effect of alternating lay- ered ansatzes on trainability of projected quantum kernel

    Yudai Suzuki and Muyuan Li. “Effect of alternating lay- ered ansatzes on trainability of projected quantum kernel”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.00361 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  8. [17]

    On the expressivity of embedding quantum kernels

    Elies Gil-Fuster, Jens Eisert, and Vedran Dunjko. “On the expressivity of embedding quantum kernels”. In:Machine Learning: Science and Technology 5.2 (2024), p. 025003

    2024

  9. [18]

    Supervised quantum machine learn- ing models are kernel methods

    Maria Schuld. “Supervised quantum machine learn- ing models are kernel methods”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.11020 (2021). Preprint – Unsupervised Quantum Anomaly Detection on Noisy Quantum Processors 8

    2021 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Quantum machine learning beyond kernel methods

    Sofiene Jerbi et al. “Quantum machine learning beyond kernel methods”. In:Nature Communications14.1 (2023), pp. 1–8

    2023

  11. [20]

    Importance of ker- nel bandwidth in quantum machine learning

    Ruslan Shaydulin and Stefan M Wild. “Importance of ker- nel bandwidth in quantum machine learning”. In: Physi- cal Review A 106.4 (2022), p. 042407

    2022

  12. [21]

    Quantum machine learning in feature hilbert spaces

    Maria Schuld and Nathan Killoran. “Quantum machine learning in feature hilbert spaces”. In: Physical review letters 122.4 (2019), p. 040504

    2019

  13. [22]

    Covariant quantum kernels for data with group structure

    Jennifer R Glick et al. “Covariant quantum kernels for data with group structure”. In: Nature Physics 20.3 (2024), pp. 479–483

    2024

  14. [23]

    Quantum tangent kernel

    Norihito Shirai et al. “Quantum tangent kernel”. In: Phys- ical Review Research 6.3 (2024), p. 033179

    2024

  15. [24]

    The complexity of quantum sup- port vector machines

    Gian Gentinetta et al. “The complexity of quantum sup- port vector machines”. In: Quantum 8 (2024), p. 1225

    2024

  16. [25]

    Quantum support vector machine for big data clas- sification

    Patrick Rebentrost, Masoud Mohseni, and Seth Lloyd. “Quantum support vector machine for big data clas- sification”. In: Physical review letters 113.13 (2014), p. 130503

    2014

  17. [26]

    A hyperparameter study for quantum kernel methods

    Sebastian Egginger, Alona Sakhnenko, and Jeanette Miriam Lorenz. “A hyperparameter study for quantum kernel methods”. In: Quantum Machine Intelligence 6.2 (2024), p. 44

    2024

  18. [27]

    Bandwidth enables general- ization in quantum kernel models

    Abdulkadir Canatar et al. “Bandwidth enables general- ization in quantum kernel models”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.06686 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Quantum Kernel Meth- ods under Scrutiny: A Benchmarking Study

    Jan Schnabel and Marco Roth. “Quantum Kernel Meth- ods under Scrutiny: A Benchmarking Study”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04406 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Benchmarking quantum ma- chine learning kernel training for classification tasks

    Diego Alvarez-Estevez. “Benchmarking quantum ma- chine learning kernel training for classification tasks”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.10274 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Better than classical? the subtle art of benchmarking quantum machine learning models

    Joseph Bowles, Shahnawaz Ahmed, and Maria Schuld. “Better than classical? the subtle art of benchmarking quantum machine learning models”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07059 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Quantum phase recognition via quantum kernel methods

    Yusen Wu et al. “Quantum phase recognition via quantum kernel methods”. In: Quantum 7 (2023), p. 981

    2023

  23. [32]

    Quantum-enhanced support vector machine for sentiment classification

    Fariska Zakhralativa Ruskanda et al. “Quantum-enhanced support vector machine for sentiment classification”. In: IEEE Access 11 (2023), pp. 87520–87532

    2023

  24. [33]

    Brain tumour classification using quantum support vector ma- chine learning algorithm

    Tarun Kumar, Dilip Kumar, and Gurmohan Singh. “Brain tumour classification using quantum support vector ma- chine learning algorithm”. In: IETE Journal of Research 70.5 (2024), pp. 4815–4828

    2024

  25. [34]

    Quantum support vector machines for continuum suppression in B meson decays

    Jamie Heredge et al. “Quantum support vector machines for continuum suppression in B meson decays”. In: Com- puting and Software for Big Science 5.1 (2021), p. 27

    2021

  26. [35]

    Evaluating Quantum Support Vector Regression Meth- ods for Price Forecasting Applications

    Horst Stühler, Daniel Pranjic, and Christian Tutschku. “Evaluating Quantum Support Vector Regression Meth- ods for Price Forecasting Applications.” In: ICAART (3). 2024, pp. 376–384

    2024

  27. [36]

    Application of quantum machine learning using the quantum kernel algorithm on high energy physics analysis at the LHC

    Sau Lan Wu et al. “Application of quantum machine learning using the quantum kernel algorithm on high energy physics analysis at the LHC”. In: Physical Review Research 3.3 (2021), p. 033221

    2021

  28. [37]

    Application of quantum machine learn- ing to high energy physics analysis at LHC using quan- tum computer simulators and quantum computer hard- ware

    Sau Lan Wu et al. Application of quantum machine learn- ing to high energy physics analysis at LHC using quan- tum computer simulators and quantum computer hard- ware. Tech. rep. Fermi National Accelerator Lab.(FNAL), Batavia, IL (United States), 2022

    2022

  29. [38]

    Quantum anomaly detection in the latent space of proton collision events at the LHC

    Kinga Anna Wo´ zniak et al. “Quantum anomaly detection in the latent space of proton collision events at the LHC”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.10780 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Machine learning of high dimensional data on a noisy quantum processor

    Evan Peters et al. “Machine learning of high dimensional data on a noisy quantum processor”. In: npj Quantum Information 7.1 (2021), p. 161

    2021

  31. [40]

    Training quantum embedding kernels on near-term quantum computers

    Thomas Hubregtsen et al. “Training quantum embedding kernels on near-term quantum computers”. In: Physical Review A 106.4 (2022), p. 042431

    2022

  32. [41]

    Support vector machines on noisy interme- diate scale quantum computers

    Jiaying Yang, Ahsan Javed Awan, and Gemma Vall- Llosera. “Support vector machines on noisy interme- diate scale quantum computers”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.11988 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Quantum ma- chine learning of large datasets using randomized mea- surements

    Tobias Haug, Chris N Self, and MS Kim. “Quantum ma- chine learning of large datasets using randomized mea- surements”. In: Machine Learning: Science and Technol- ogy 4.1 (2023), p. 015005

    2023

  34. [43]

    Experimental evaluation of quantum machine learning algorithms

    Ricardo Daniel Monteiro Simões et al. “Experimental evaluation of quantum machine learning algorithms”. In: IEEE access 11 (2023), pp. 6197–6208

    2023

  35. [44]

    Credit Card Transactions Fraud Detec- tion Dataset: Simulated Credit Card Transactions gener- ated using Sparkov

    Kartik Shenoy. Credit Card Transactions Fraud Detec- tion Dataset: Simulated Credit Card Transactions gener- ated using Sparkov. 2020. url: https://www.kaggle. com/datasets/kartik2112/fraud-detection

    2020

  36. [45]

    Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill. “Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements”. In:Nature Physics16.10 (2020), pp. 1050–1057

    2020

  37. [46]

    Optimizing Shadow Tomography with Generalized Measurements

    H. Chau Nguyen et al. “Optimizing Shadow Tomography with Generalized Measurements”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett.129 (22 2022), p. 220502. doi: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevLett . 129.220502. url: https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.129.220502

    2022

  38. [47]

    New support vector algorithms

    Bernhard Scholkopf. “New support vector algorithms”. In: Neural Computation 12 (2000), pp. 1083–1121

    2000

  39. [48]

    LIBSVM: a li- brary for support vector machines

    Chih-Chung Chang and Chih-Jen Lin. “LIBSVM: a li- brary for support vector machines”. In:ACM transactions on intelligent systems and technology (TIST) 2.3 (2011), pp. 1–27

    2011

  40. [49]

    Sparkov Data Generation: Generate Fake Credit Card Transaction Data, Including Fraudulent Transactions

    Emmanuel Leroy, Brandon Harris, and Kartik Shenoy. Sparkov Data Generation: Generate Fake Credit Card Transaction Data, Including Fraudulent Transactions

  41. [50]

    Generalization in quantum ma- chine learning from few training data

    Matthias C Caro et al. “Generalization in quantum ma- chine learning from few training data”. In: Nature com- munications 13.1 (2022), p. 4919

    2022

  42. [51]

    Mathematical methods of statistics

    Harald Cramér. Mathematical methods of statistics . Princeton mathematical series. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1946. isbn: 0-691-08004-6

    1946

  43. [52]

    Note on Regression and Inheritance in the Case of Two Parents

    Karl Pearson. “Note on Regression and Inheritance in the Case of Two Parents”. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 58 (1895), pp. 240–242. Preprint – Unsupervised Quantum Anomaly Detection on Noisy Quantum Processors 9 Appendix A. Hardware Efficient Feature Maps We ...

    2024

  44. [54]

    Variable Name PCC cc number 0.000906 city population 0.000984 merch_lat 0.001136 lat 0.001278 time since first trans

    with the label and can also be seen as a heatmap in Figure 8. Variable Name PCC cc number 0.000906 city population 0.000984 merch_lat 0.001136 lat 0.001278 time since first trans. 0.001590 long 0.001610 merch_long 0.001627 F 0.007707 M 0.007707 age 0.007883 state fraud rate 0....

  45. [2020]

    com / namebrandon / Sparkov_Data_Generation

    url: https : / / github . com / namebrandon / Sparkov_Data_Generation

Pith tools

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