Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Data re-uploading in Quantum Machine Learning for time series: application to traffic forecasting

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A hybrid quantum-classical network whose data re-uploading layer mimics LSTM recursion matches or outperforms an equal-size classical LSTM for next-step traffic forecasting once the quantum layer uses six or more qubits.

desk verdict First traffic-forecasting application of data re-uploading, but the headline comparison to LSTMs is confounded by input presentation. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12776 v1 pith:TYNZBTQX submitted 2025-01-22 quant-ph cs.AIcs.LGcs.NE

Nikolaos Schetakis , Paolo Bonfini , Negin Alisoltani , Konstantinos Blazakis , Symeon I. Tsintzos , Alexis Askitopoulos , Davit Aghamalyan , Panagiotis Fafoutellis
show 1 more author
Eleni I. Vlahogianni
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.AIcs.LGcs.NE
keywords quantummachinelearningtrafficforecastingdatare-uploadinghybridquantum-classicalneuralnetworkstimeseriesLSTMvariationalcircuitsintelligenttransportationsystems
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 asks whether a quantum machine learning layer can compete with classical deep networks on real-world time series, using next-step traffic flow on an Athens highway as the testbed. It introduces the first use of quantum data re-uploading in transport forecasting, building hybrid networks where a quantum layer replaces either a fully connected layer or an LSTM layer. In the recursive setup, hybrid models match or outperform the classical LSTM counterparts when the quantum layer uses six or more qubits, and their errors vary less across test folds. The authors read this as evidence that data re-uploading circuits can serve as recursive memory cells for temporal data. The result is relevant because it identifies a concrete regime, small quantum layers on repetitive, high-resolution time series, where hybrid models can claim a genuine accuracy advantage.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the data re-uploading variational circuit, a quantum layer that encodes the same classical data multiple times into an evolving quantum state. Each re-uploading block applies angle embedding (data-dependent rotations), trainable rotation gates, and CNOT entangling gates, followed by a measurement that converts the final state to a classical output. Because each re-upload acts on the state left by the previous blocks rather than resetting it, the circuit accumulates information across iterations, which the authors compare to the hidden-state accumulation of an LSTM. The paper's equivalence rule, matching qubit count, output length, and recursion count between the quantum layer and the LSTM, is what makes the head-to-head comparison meaningful.

What would settle it

Rerun the recursive experiment with a classical LSTM baseline matched to the quantum layer by number of trainable parameters instead of by recursion count; if the classical model at matched parameter count reaches or exceeds hybrid accuracy at six qubits, the claimed quantum advantage is an artifact of the equivalence rule.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the paper's center is the claim that a data re-uploading variational circuit, used as the first recursive layer of a hybrid network, can forecast next-step traffic flow as accurately as an LSTM layer built from the same number of units, and more accurately once that number reaches six. The comparison is anchored in an explicit equivalence: the LSTM and the quantum layer both receive an $N_q$-length embedded sequence, emit an $N_q$-length sequence, and recurse $N_q$ times, so the only structural difference is quantum versus classical processing. On 40 days of 1.5-minute detector data from an Athens highway, evaluated with 5-fold gap cross-validation, the recursive hybrid models at $N_q \geq 6$ show lower MSE, MAE, and $R^2$ dispersion than their classical pairs. In fully connected networks, the hybrid architecture only becomes statistically comparable to a classical fully connected layer at about ten qubits, and it converges more slowly. The authors conclude that data re-uploading, treated as a memory mechanism rather than only an expressivity boost, is what makes quantum layers competitive for time series.

Load-bearing premise

The entire comparison rests on the assumption that an $N_q$-unit LSTM layer and an $N_q$-qubit data re-uploading layer are equally capable simply because they process the same-length sequence, output the same length, and recurse the same number of times.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For recursive networks, a data re-uploading quantum layer with six or more qubits is claimed to produce lower forecast error and lower cross-fold dispersion than an LSTM layer with the same recursion count.
  • For fully connected networks, hybrid models need roughly ten qubits before their error becomes statistically compatible with a classical fully connected layer of $2^{N_q}$ neurons.
  • The flattening of all training curves within 20 epochs indicates that the performance differences between classical and hybrid models are attributed to generalization rather than to incomplete convergence.
  • Because data re-uploading circuits in the tested range do not show vanishing-gradient degradation, increasing the number of qubits and re-uploading blocks is presented as a reliable route to improved hybrid accuracy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the paper's equivalence rule would rerun the recursive experiment with a classical LSTM whose hidden width is scaled so its trainable parameter count matches the quantum layer's; if the hybrid advantage at six qubits disappears, the gap came from the baseline definition, not from quantum processing.
  • The same recursive re-uploading construction could transfer to other high-resolution, repetitive time series such as electricity load or tick-by-tick financial data, where the next-step task is simple but the data volume is large enough to make convergence fast.
  • Because the quantum layers were simulated classically and cost about twice as much per re-uploading block, the paper's accuracy claims transfer to real hardware but its competitive framing does not include a computational advantage; a true practical advantage would require the simulations to be replaced by faster or less noisy physical qubits.
  • The observation that recursive hybrid models converge faster while fully connected hybrid models converge slower suggests that the re-uploading structure, rather than quantumness alone, is doing the work; a useful control experiment would be a classical recurrent layer that re-reads its input multiple times to see whether it reproduces part of the effect.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an empirical comparison of classical deep learning and hybrid quantum-classical neural networks for next-step traffic flow forecasting on a single Athens loop detector, using 40 days of 1.5-minute traffic volume data. The authors propose two comparison scenarios: in Scenario A a fully connected layer is replaced by a quantum layer, with the classical counterpart having 2^Nq neurons per Nq qubits; in Scenario B an LSTM layer with Nq units is replaced by a data re-uploading quantum layer with Nq qubits and Nq re-uploading blocks. Training uses a 5-fold gap cross-validation protocol with a validation set, and performance is reported via MSE, MAE, and R2. The central claim is that hybrid recursive models outperform their classical counterparts for Nq >= 6, while fully connected hybrid models are competitive but not superior. The paper also emphasizes that this is the first application of data re-uploading to transport forecasting.

Significance. If the central empirical claim were established, the paper would be a useful application-oriented datapoint: it would suggest that a data re-uploading quantum layer, acting as a recurrent-like memory, can match or beat a small LSTM on a real traffic forecasting task. The authors take several methodological precautions that are to their credit: leakage-aware gap cross-validation, a separate validation set for convergence monitoring, and a consistency check to test for temporal leakage. On the other hand, the main comparative claim in the recursive scenario rests on an equivalence assumption that is structurally questionable, and the reported 'outperform' results are not backed by any statistical significance testing. As a result, the paper's central claim is not yet supported, although the experimental framework is a reasonable starting point for a revised comparison.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.2.2, Algorithm 1, Figures 5 and 6] The claimed equivalence between the LSTM and the data re-uploading layer is not structurally valid. The LSTM with Nq units receives the embedded sequence (e1,...,eNq) in temporal order: at recursion t it sees only element e_t and updates a hidden state, so the sequence order is part of its computation. In contrast, the quantum layer described by Algorithm 1 and Figure 5 angle-encodes the full Nq-dimensional embedded vector into Nq qubits and then re-uploads that same full vector in each of the Nq blocks. Thus at every 'recursion' the hybrid model sees the entire window, while the LSTM is forced to integrate the sequence incrementally. The final measurement also returns a vector of expectation values rather than a temporally ordered output sequence. Consequently, the reported advantage of hybrid recursive models for Nq >= 6 in Section 4.2 is confounded with input presentation and does not isolate a recurrent or quantum advantage. A fair comparison would require either a classical recurrent baseline that also receives the full window at every step (e.g., an LSTM whose input at each timestep is the whole embedded vector) or a quantum circuit that ingests one element of the sequence per re-upload, matching the LSTM's temporal schedule.
  2. [4.2, Figures 9 and 10] The statement that 'hybrid architectures outperform the classical counterparts for 6 qubits or more' is based on boxplots from only 5 cross-validation folds, with no statistical test of the difference. With n=5, the observed medians, means, and interquartile ranges could easily arise from fold-to-fold sampling variability, especially given the relatively small performance differences visible in the figures. The authors should report fold-level performance, paired difference tests (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank or paired t-test), and effect sizes or confidence intervals for each qubit count, for all three metrics. Without such evidence, the 'outperform' claim is not quantitatively supported.
  3. [3.2.1 and 3.2.2] The comparisons also do not control for the number of trainable parameters or the computational capacity of the classical and quantum layers. In Scenario B, an LSTM with Nq units has O(Nq^2) recurrent and input parameters, while the quantum layer has a different parameter count determined by the number of re-uploading blocks and the rotational gates per block; the paper does not report parameter counts for either model. The stated equivalence is based only on the number of recursions, which is not a standard measure of model capacity. This is a second confound: the observed performance gap could reflect model-capacity or optimization differences rather than a quantum-specific advantage. The paper should at least report parameter counts and, if feasible, compare against a classical baseline with a matched parameter budget.
minor comments (5)
  1. [3.2.1] The phrase 'without loss of generality' when reversing the qubit-to-neuron mapping is not accurate: choosing which side of the comparison is the reference affects the number of trainable parameters and the optimization landscape, so the two presentations are not symmetric.
  2. [Abstract and Section 2.1] The abstract says the models are compared with 'state-of-the-art classical methods,' but the actual classical baselines are a small fully connected layer and an LSTM with Nq units. These are not state-of-the-art in traffic forecasting, where graph-based and attention-based models are common. The wording should be tempered to 'small classical baselines' or the comparison should include a stronger classical reference.
  3. [4.3] The consistency check in Figure 11 is only shown for model Q6 and is claimed to be 'representative' of all other models without supporting evidence. It would be more convincing to show the same check for at least one more model, or to state explicitly why Q6 is representative.
  4. [Throughout] The manuscript alternates between 'classic' and 'classical' for the same concept; please standardize the terminology. There are also occasional typographical errors (e.g., 'catenating' should be 'concatenating' in Section 1) and inconsistent hyphenation of 'data re-upload.'
  5. [2.3 and 5] The discussion of barren plateaus in Section 6 is interesting but somewhat disconnected from the experiments, since the paper does not measure gradient variance. Either remove or tie it to concrete observations from the training curves.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the study is an empirical benchmark whose central comparison is not forced by construction.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical benchmark study rather than a derivation. The central claims—hybrid recursive architectures outperform their classical LSTM counterparts for six or more qubits, and hybrid fully-connected models become competitive as qubits increase—are obtained by training models on real traffic data under a gap cross-validation protocol and evaluating them on held-out test folds. No prediction is algebraically constructed from the fitted parameters or from the equivalence definitions. The equivalence between LSTM and quantum layers stated in Section 3.2.2 (both take Nq-long sequences, produce Nq-long outputs, and recurse Nq times) is an experimental design assumption that selects the classical baseline; it does not mathematically force the reported outcome, even though one could debate whether the comparison is the most favorable for the classical model. Self-citations (refs 52, 53, 64) appear only in background remarks about prior QML frameworks and in a statement about simulation runtime, and they are not load-bearing for the performance claims. The result is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks, and no circular reduction or fitted-input-as-prediction step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is empirical, not derivational. It rests on hand-chosen hyperparameters and on the paper's own equivalence rules for comparing quantum and classical layers. There are no new physical entities. The main burden is the fairness of the classical baselines and the representativeness of the single dataset.

free parameters (7)
  • Window size w = 20 timesteps
    Input sequence length; chosen by hand; determines how much temporal context each prediction sees.
  • Number of qubits/re-upload blocks Nq = 2 to 14 (varied)
    Core complexity knob of the hybrid models; the paper varies it and observes performance trends; also fixes the number of re-uploads to equal Nq.
  • Autoencoder latent dimension = Nq
    Compressed embedded sequence size; equals qubit count; chosen for information-equivalence with the quantum layer in both scenarios.
  • Learning rate = 0.0005
    Adam optimizer hyperparameter chosen by hand; all models are trained with the same setting.
  • Training epochs = 20
    Fixed training budget; convergence curves flatten before this limit, so the reported comparisons depend on this budget.
  • Batch size = 32 windows
    Mini-batch size used during training; chosen by hand.
  • Autoencoder LSTM units = 32
    Capacity of the encoder and decoder LSTM cells in the preprocessing autoencoder; chosen by hand.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper A quantum layer with Nq qubits is a fair counterpart to a classical layer with 2^Nq neurons or with an Nq-unit LSTM.
    The equivalence criteria in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 are the paper's own design; all subsequent comparisons inherit this choice.
  • domain assumption Gap cross-validation with temporal gaps removes causal leakage between train and test.
    Section 3.4 relies on discarded 'gap' data to break time dependence; Section 4.3 provides a trend check but no formal guarantee.
  • domain assumption One loop detector on one avenue over 40 days is representative enough to draw forecasting conclusions.
    Section 3.1 uses a single, highly regular road; the authors themselves list multi-site and harder datasets as future work in Section 6.
  • domain assumption Data re-uploading circuits act as recursive memory cells analogous to LSTM cells.
    This premise in Section 3.2.2 motivates why re-uploading can replace an LSTM, but it is not proven by the experiments.
  • domain assumption PennyLane statevector simulations faithfully represent the intended quantum circuits.
    All hybrid results are produced by classical simulation (Section 3.2.3), so simulation fidelity is assumed.
  • standard math Re-uploading variational circuits avoid barren plateaus in the tested regime.
    The conclusion section invokes external results (refs 69, 70) on trainability of data re-uploading circuits; the paper does not measure gradients itself.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data re-uploading in Quantum Machine Learning for time series: application to traffic forecasting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TYNZBTQX

@misc{pith2026250112776,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data re-uploading in Quantum Machine Learning for time series: application to traffic forecasting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TYNZBTQX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12776}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate traffic forecasting plays a crucial role in modern Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), as it enables real-time traffic flow management, reduces congestion, and improves the overall efficiency of urban transportation networks. With the rise of Quantum Machine Learning (QML), it has emerged a new paradigm possessing the potential to enhance predictive capabilities beyond what classical machine learning models can achieve. In the present work we pursue a heuristic approach to explore the potential of QML, and focus on a specific transport issue. In particular, as a case study we investigate a traffic forecast task for a major urban area in Athens (Greece), for which we possess high-resolution data. In this endeavor we explore the application of Quantum Neural Networks (QNN), and, notably, we present the first application of quantum data re-uploading in the context of transport forecasting. This technique allows quantum models to better capture complex patterns, such as traffic dynamics, by repeatedly encoding classical data into a quantum state. Aside from providing a prediction model, we spend considerable effort in comparing the performance of our hybrid quantum-classical neural networks with classical deep learning approaches. Our results show that hybrid models achieve competitive accuracy with state-of-the-art classical methods, especially when the number of qubits and re-uploading blocks is increased. While the classical models demonstrate lower computational demands, we provide evidence that increasing the complexity of the quantum model improves predictive accuracy. These findings indicate that QML techniques, and specifically the data re-uploading approach, hold promise for advancing traffic forecasting models and could be instrumental in addressing challenges inherent in ITS environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12776 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Location of the loop detector used in this study, relative to the center of Athens, Greece. The core of our approach involves two distinct scenarios. In Scenario A, we focus on fully connected neural networks (NNs), replacing a classical fully connected layer with a quantum layer. This scenario allows us to investigate whether quantum layers can encode information more efficiently and capture the underlying traffic … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Full extent (top) and detailed view (bottom) of the time series used in the study. The x-axis displays the datapoint index, while the y-axis shows the traffic volume in units of vehicles/hour. 5/20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic representation of the fully connected architecture used in the scenario described in Section 3.2.1. The left side of the image shows the encoding provided by the autoencoder trained as depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The architecture of the autoencoder is used as a preprocessing step for the NNs in Figures 3 and 6. The encoder is constituted by an LSTM cell composed of 32 units and an FC layer, which shrinks the embedding space to the desired Nq features; the same structure is mirr…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of an unfolded data re-upload scheme with N re-upload blocks (blue boxes) with the same components as the ones adopted in this work. In this specific depiction, the classic input data have dimensionality 3, and the circuit is composed of 3 qubits. In each block…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Schematic representation of the recursive architecture used in the scenario described in Section 3.2.2. The left side of the image shows the encoding provided by the autoencoder trained as depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Two iterations of the gap-cross-validation protocol were employed in this work to assess the performance uncertainties. The train, validation, and test folds are represented in blue, orange, and red, respectively. The green slices show the gaps excluded from the analys…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of the models’ loss (MSE) as measured on the training sets for the fully connected architectures (Scenario A; left) and the recursive architectures (Scenario B; right). The curves represent the mean value at each epoch, averaged over the 5-fold cross-validati…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Performance scores of all fully connected models explored in this study, as evaluated on the 5 test (hold-out) folds of the CV. From top to bottom: Mean Squared Error (MSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), and R 2 . The boxes represent the interquartile range (IQR), which i…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Performance scores of all recursive models explored in this study, as evaluated on the 5 test (hold-out) folds of the CV. Same as for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Assessment of a collection of metrics on the test sets belonging to different folding of the cross-validation protocol illustrated in section Section 3.4 To rule out any potential bias introduced by our CV assessment protocol, which involved test sets preceding the tr…

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. Supervised Quantum Machine Learning: A Future Outlook from Qubits to Enterprise Applications

    quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A review of supervised quantum machine learning techniques and a speculative roadmap for 2025-2035, concluding that practical quantum advantage will be confined to niche domains until fault-tolerant hardware arrives.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Yin, X. et al. Deep learning on traffic prediction: Methods, analysis and future directions. IEEE Transactions on Intell. Transp. Syst. 1–15, DOI: 10.1109/TITS.2021.3054840 (2021)

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    & Vlahogianni, E

    Lana, I., Del Ser, J., Velez, M. & Vlahogianni, E. I. Road traffic forecasting: Recent advances and new challenges. IEEE Intell. Transp. Syst. Mag. 10, 93–109, DOI: 10.1109/MITS.2018.2806634 (2018)

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Cheng, Z., Pang, M. S. & Pavlou, P. A. Mitigating traffic congestion: The role of intelligent transportation systems. Inf. Syst. Res. 31, 653–674 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    & Liu, S

    Gao, Y ., Zhou, C., Rong, J., Wang, Y . & Liu, S. Short-term traffic speed forecasting using a deep learning method based on multitemporal traffic flow volume. IEEE Access 10, 82384–82395 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    I., Karlaftis, M

    Vlahogianni, E. I., Karlaftis, M. G. & Golias, J. C. Short-term traffic forecasting: Where we are and where we’re going. Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol.43, 3–19, DOI: 10.1016/j.trc.2014.01.005 (2014)

    doi:10.1016/j.trc.2014.01.005 2014

  6. [6]

    Yao, H., Tang, X., Wei, H., Zheng, G. & Li, Z. Revisiting spatial-temporal similarity: A deep learning framework for traffic prediction. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 33, 5668–5675, DOI: 10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33015668 (2019)

    doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33015668 2019

  7. [7]

    & Golias, J

    Mantouka, E., Barmpounakis, E., Vlahogianni, E. & Golias, J. Smartphone sensing for understanding driving behavior: Current practice and challenges. Int. J. Transp. Sci. Technol.10, 266–282, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijtst.2020.07.001 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijtst.2020.07.001 2021

  8. [8]

    Vlahogianni, E. I. & Barmpounakis, E. N. Driving analytics using smartphones: Algorithms, comparisons and challenges. Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol.79, 196–206, DOI: 10.1016/j.trc.2017.03.014 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.trc.2017.03.014 2017

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    & Luo, J

    Jiang, W. & Luo, J. Graph neural network for traffic forecasting: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Intell. Transp. Syst. (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Bharti, K. et al. Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms. Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 015004 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond

    Preskill, J. Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond. Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Arute, F. et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature 574, 505–510 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Harrow, A. W. & Montanaro, A. Quantum computational supremacy. Nature 549, 203–209 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Zhong, H.-S. et al. Quantum computational advantage using photons. Science 370, 1460–1463 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Bluvstein, D. et al. A quantum processor based on coherent transport of entangled atom arrays. Nature 604, 451–456 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Bravyi, S. et al. High-threshold and low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory. Nature 627, 778–782 (2024). 17/20

    2024

  9. [17]

    Biamonte, J. et al. Quantum machine learning. Nature 549, 195–202 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    & Coles, P

    Cerezo, M., Verdon, G., Huang, H.-Y ., Cincio, L. & Coles, P. J. Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning. Nat. Comput. Sci. 2, 567–576 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    & Schuld, M

    Bowles, J., Ahmed, S. & Schuld, M. Better than classical? the subtle art of benchmarking quantum machine learning models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07059 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    W., Hassidim, A

    Harrow, A. W., Hassidim, A. & Lloyd, S. Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations. Phys. review letters 103, 150502 (2009)

    2009

  13. [21]

    & Rebentrost, P

    Huang, H.-Y ., Bharti, K. & Rebentrost, P. Near-term quantum algorithms for linear systems of equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.07344 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Morales, M. E. et al. Quantum linear system solvers: A survey of algorithms and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02522 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    & Lloyd, S

    Rebentrost, P., Steffens, A., Marvian, I. & Lloyd, S. Quantum singular-value decomposition of nonsparse low-rank matrices. Phys. review A 97, 012327 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    & Rebentrost, P

    Lloyd, S., Mohseni, M. & Rebentrost, P. Quantum principal component analysis. Nat. physics 10, 631–633 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Khan, T. M. & Robles-Kelly, A. Machine learning: Quantum vs classical. IEEE Access 8, 219275–219294 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    A., Mendez-Vazquez, A

    Rivera-Ruiz, M. A., Mendez-Vazquez, A. & López-Romero, J. M. Time series forecasting with quantum machine learning architectures. In Mexican International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 66–82 (Springer Nature, Cham, Switzerland, 2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    & Jiang, R

    Easom-Mccaldin, P., Bouridane, A., Belatreche, A. & Jiang, R. On depth, robustness and performance using the data re-uploading single-qubit classifier. IEEE Access 9, 65127–65139 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    & Latorre, J

    Pérez-Salinas, A., Cervera-Lierta, A., Gil-Fuster, E. & Latorre, J. I. Data re-uploading for a universal quantum classifier. Quantum 4, 226 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    & Latorre, J

    Pérez-Salinas, A., López-Núñez, D., García-Sáez, A., Forn-Díaz, P. & Latorre, J. I. One qubit as a universal approximant. Phys. Rev. A 104, 012405 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Zhao, Z., Chen, W., Wu, X., Chen, P. C. Y . & Liu, J. Lstm network: A deep learning approach for short-term traffic forecast. IET Intell. Transp. Syst. 11, 68–75, DOI: 10.1049/iet-its.2016.0208 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    & Oukhellou, L

    Bapaume, T., Côme, E., Roos, J., Ameli, M. & Oukhellou, L. Image inpainting and deep learning to forecast short-term train loads. IEEE Access 9, 98506–98522 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    & Lee, L

    Wang, Y ., Zhang, D., Liu, Y ., Dai, B. & Lee, L. H. Enhancing transportation systems via deep learning: A survey.Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol.99, 144–163, DOI: 10.1016/j.trc.2018.12.004 (2019)

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    Fafoutellis, P., Vlahogianni, E. I. & Del Ser, J. Dilated lstm networks for short-term traffic forecasting using network-wide vehicle trajectory data. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), DOI: 10.1109/ITSC4...

    2020

  26. [34]

    P., Kim, H

    Ranjan, N., Bhandari, S., Zhao, H. P., Kim, H. & Khan, P. City-wide traffic congestion prediction based on cnn, lstm and transpose cnn. IEEE Access 8, 81606–81620 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    & Wang, J

    Boukerche, A. & Wang, J. Machine learning-based traffic prediction models for intelligent transportation systems. Comput. Networks 181, 107530, DOI: 10.1016/j.comnet.2020.107530 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Ma, X. et al. Learning traffic as images: A deep convolutional neural network for large-scale transportation network speed prediction. Sensors 17, DOI: 10.3390/s17040818 (2017)

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    Dai, X. et al. Deeptrend 2.0: A light-weighted multi-scale traffic prediction model using detrending. Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 103, 142–157, DOI: 10.1016/J.TRC.2019.03.022 (2019)

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    & Yildirimoglu, M

    Leiser, N. & Yildirimoglu, M. Incorporating congestion patterns into spatio-temporal deep learning algorithms. Transp. B 9, 622–640, DOI: 10.1080/21680566.2021.1922320 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    & Wang, Y

    Cui, Z., Ke, R., Pu, Z., Ma, X. & Wang, Y . Learning traffic as a graph: A gated graph wavelet recurrent neural network for network-scale traffic prediction. Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol.115, 102620, DOI: 10.1016/j.trc.2020.102620 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Yu, J. J. Q., Markos, C. & Zhang, S. Long-term urban traffic speed prediction with deep learning on graphs. IEEE Transactions on Intell. Transp. Syst.DOI: 10.1109/TITS.2021.3069234 (2021). 18/20

    2021

  33. [41]

    Wang, S., Pei, Z., Wang, C. & Wu, J. Shaping the future of the application of quantum computing in intelligent transportation system. Intell. Converged Networks 2, 259–276 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    D., Marsh, S., Carvalho, A

    Bentley, C. D., Marsh, S., Carvalho, A. R., Kilby, P. & Biercuk, M. J. Quantum computing for transport optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07313 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Dixit, V . V . & Niu, C. Quantum computing for transport network design problems.Sci. Reports 13, 12267 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    V ., Niu, C., Rey, D., Waller, S

    Dixit, V . V ., Niu, C., Rey, D., Waller, S. T. & Levin, M. W. Quantum computing to solve scenario-based stochastic time-dependent shortest path routing. Transp. Lett. 1–11 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Yarkoni, S. et al. Quantum shuttle: traffic navigation with quantum computing. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGSOFT International Workshop on Architectures and Paradigms for Engineering Quantum Software, 22–30 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Beyond quantum supremacy: The hunt for useful quantum computers

    Brooks, M. Beyond quantum supremacy: The hunt for useful quantum computers. Nature 574, 19–22 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    & Coles, P

    Cerezo, M., Verdon, G., Huang, H.-Y ., Cincio, L. & Coles, P. J. Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning. Nat. Comput. Sci. 2, 567–576, DOI: 10.1038/s43588-022-00311-3 (2022)

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    Biamonte, J. et al. Quantum machine learning. Nature 549, 195–202, DOI: 10.1038/nature23474 (2017)

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    & Deng, D.-L

    Cai, H., Ye, Q. & Deng, D.-L. Sample complexity of learning parametric quantum circuits. Quantum Sci. Technol. 7, 025014, DOI: 10.1088/2058-9565/ac4f30 (2022)

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    & Kim, M

    Haug, T., Bharti, K. & Kim, M. S. Capacity and quantum geometry of parametrized quantum circuits. PRX Quantum 2, 040309, DOI: 10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.040309 (2021)

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    R., Izaac, J., Schuld, M

    Mari, A., Bromley, T. R., Izaac, J., Schuld, M. & Killoran, N. Transfer learning in hybrid classical-quantum neural networks. Quantum 4, 340, DOI: 10.22331/q-2020-10-09-340 (2020)

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    & Boguslavsky, M

    Schetakis, N., Aghamalyan, D., Griffin, P. & Boguslavsky, M. Review of some existing qml frameworks and novel hybrid classical–quantum neural networks realizing binary classification for noisy datasets. Sci. Reports 12, 11927, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-14876-6 (2022)

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    Schetakis, N. et al. Quantum machine learning for credit scoring. Res. Collect. Sch. Comput. Inf. Syst. 1–13 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    Bharti, K. et al. Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms. Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 015004, DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys. 94.015004 (2022)

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    Cerezo, M. et al. Variational quantum algorithms. Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 625–644, DOI: 10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9 (2021)

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    & Meyer, J

    Schuld, M., Sweke, R. & Meyer, J. J. Effect of data encoding on the expressive power of variational quantum-machine- learning models. Phys. Rev. A 103, 032430 (2021)

    2021

  49. [58]

    Bergmeir, C., Hyndman, R. J. & Koo, B. A note on the validity of cross-validation for evaluating autoregressive time series prediction. Comput. Stat. & Data Analysis 120, 70–83, DOI: 10.1016/j.csda.2017.11.003 (2018)

    2018 doi

  50. [59]

    Consistent cross-validatory model-selection for dependent data: Hv-block cross-validation

    Racine, J. Consistent cross-validatory model-selection for dependent data: Hv-block cross-validation. J. Econom. 99, 39–61, DOI: 10.1016/S0304-4076(00)00030-0 (2000)

    2000 doi

  51. [60]

    Tscv: Time series cross-validation

    Zheng, W. Tscv: Time series cross-validation. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.02201 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Yu, Y ., Hu, G., Liu, C., Xiong, J. & Wu, Z. Prediction of solar irradiance one hour ahead based on quantum long short-term memory network. IEEE Transactions on Quantum Eng. 4, 1–15 (2023)

    2023

  53. [62]

    Sagingalieva, A. et al. Photovoltaic power forecasting using quantum machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.16379 (2023). [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.16379

    2023

  54. [63]

    Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks

    Sutskever, I. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27 (2014)

    2014

  55. [64]

    Schetakis, N. et al. Quantum machine learning for credit scoring. Mathematics 12, 1391 (2024)

    2024

  56. [65]

    Scully, M. O. & Zubairy, M. S. Quantum optics (Cambridge university press, 1997)

    1997

  57. [66]

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

    2010

  58. [67]

    Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations

    Bergholm, V .et al. Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.04968 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Larocca, M. et al. A review of barren plateaus in variational quantum computing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00781 (2024). 19/20

    2024 arXiv

  60. [69]

    & Pérez-Salinas, A

    Barthe, A. & Pérez-Salinas, A. Gradients and frequency profiles of quantum re-uploading models. Quantum 8, 1523 (2024)

    2024

  61. [70]

    & Paulo Santos, L

    Coelho, R., Sequeira, A. & Paulo Santos, L. Vqc-based reinforcement learning with data re-uploading: performance and trainability. Quantum Mach. Intell. 6, 53 (2024)

    2024

  62. [71]

    & Coles, P

    Cerezo, M. & Coles, P. J. Higher order derivatives of quantum neural networks with barren plateaus.Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 035006 (2021)

    2021

  63. [72]

    S., Bhangu, K

    Sen, P., Bhatia, A. S., Bhangu, K. S. & Elbeltagi, A. Variational quantum classifiers through the lens of the hessian. Plos one 17, e0262346 (2022). Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the European Union for funding this research through two projects: ERA4CH (Eart...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.