Brain-Inspired Quantum Neural Architectures for Pattern Recognition: Integrating QSNN and QLSTM

Eva Andr\'es; Gabriel Navarro; Manuel Pegalajar Cu\'ellar

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Brain-Inspired Quantum Neural Architectures for Pattern Recognition: Integrating QSNN and QLSTM

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-stage hybrid of quantum spiking and quantum recurrent networks outperforms six classical and quantum baselines on credit-card fraud detection.

desk verdict Plausible hybrid architecture, but the headline superiority claim is not supported by an uncontrolled benchmark with no significance tests and no code. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01735 v1 pith:5JJLORGQ submitted 2025-05-03 cs.ET

Eva Andrés , Manuel Pegalajar Cuéllar , Gabriel Navarro This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ET

keywords AnomalyDetectionQuantumNeuralNetworksSpikingLongShort-TermMemoryBrain-inspiredmodelsCreditcardfraudVariationalcircuits

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 tries to establish that a two-stage quantum architecture—a Quantum Spiking Neural Network front end followed by a Quantum Long Short-Term Memory module—detects credit-card fraud more accurately than six classical and quantum baselines. The design is explicitly brain-inspired: the spiking stage is compared with low-level sensory processing, and the recurrent stage with memory formation and recall. The reported evidence is a seven-model comparison on 284,807 credit-card transactions, in which the hybrid model reaches the highest F1, AUC, and recall while using fewer parameters, fewer training samples, and fewer iterations than the classical models. A sympathetic reader would take the paper's central claim to be that quantum brain-inspired hybrids are the best of the compared approaches for anomaly detection on small, imbalanced datasets.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-stage QSNN-QLSTM pipeline. A Quantum Spiking Neural Network—a spiking network whose leaky integrate-and-fire neurons have their membrane potential initialized by a variational quantum circuit, trained with surrogate gradients that replace the non-differentiable spike decision with a smooth approximation in the backward pass—forms the first stage and is pre-trained alone. A Quantum Long Short-Term Memory module, in which the forget, input, update, and output gates are each variational quantum circuits, forms the second stage. The training protocol has three phases: pre-train the QSNN; propagate data through the frozen QSNN into a fresh QLSTM for a single pass; then co-train both with two optimizers at different learning rates. This staged protocol is what the paper argues lets the model learn new patterns without erasing prior knowledge, and the variational circuits are what make the model quantum.

What would settle it

Run the same seven models on the same credit-card fraud data under identical data budgets, optimizer families where possible, and a fixed early-stopping rule, evaluating by nested cross-validation on the training folds; if QSNN-QLSTM does not rank first in F1, AUC, or recall across the ten seeds, the paper's central superiority claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the novel QSNN-QLSTM model consistently surpasses the other compared models in F1 score, AUC, and recall on the credit-card fraud dataset, while using 774 trainable parameters (against 43,457 for the classical LSTM), training on 1,390 samples instead of 5,390, and converging in 40 iterations instead of 700 for the ANN. The authors attribute this to a division of labor: the QSNN stage filters noisy and infrequent events and strengthens spatiotemporally correlated signals, while the QLSTM stage captures and memorizes correlated patterns, transforming short-term into long-term storage. The paper also reports that the hybrid model is second only to the SNN in precision. In the authors' reading, this supports the broader conclusion that quantum brain-inspired models can detect patterns that classical and simpler quantum models miss.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the assumption that the experimental settings—quantum models trained on 1,390 samples and classical on 5,390, with different optimizers, batch sizes, and iteration counts—were chosen fairly and not tuned to the test set, so the reported wins reflect the architecture rather than the configuration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the superiority claim is right, hybrid quantum spiking-plus-recurrent models are a viable alternative to classical networks for imbalanced tabular anomaly detection.
The three-phase training recipe provides a concrete template for adding a recurrent memory stage to a pre-trained spiking network without catastrophic forgetting.
The reported data efficiency suggests quantum models could be used where labeled examples are scarce, reducing reliance on synthetic data augmentation.
The iteration count of 40 versus 700 implies that, absent simulation overhead, the hybrid model would train far faster in wall-clock time on quantum hardware.
The parameter-count ordering reported (QNN below QSNN below ANN below QSNN-QLSTM below SNN below QLSTM below LSTM) indicates that hybrid quantum models can stay lightweight despite combining two architectures.

Reading between the lines

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

An ablation study that removes either the QSNN or the QLSTM stage would isolate whether the gains come from the spiking front end, the recurrent memory, or simply the extra trainable parameters.
A paired statistical test over the paper's ten random seeds would show whether the reported F1 and AUC gaps exceed run-to-run variability; the paper does not report such a test.
The same two-stage design could be tried on other imbalanced tabular benchmarks with different fraud ratios and feature counts, which would reveal whether the advantage is specific to this dataset.
Because all quantum models here run on simulators, the reported margins are not yet evidence about performance on noisy quantum hardware; that is an inference, not a claim the paper makes.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The one thing you should know: this paper puts a new three-phase QSNN-QLSTM pipeline on a fraud-detection task and claims it consistently beats classical and other quantum baselines with fewer parameters, fewer data, and fewer iterations. The architecture combination is genuinely not in the cited literature, and the authors are transparent about parameter counts and training settings. But the central comparison is not credible as reported. Section 4.2 shows that each model was tuned separately with different training set sizes (1,000 vs. 5,000 non-fraud samples), different optimizers, batch sizes, and iteration counts, all selected experimentally to maximize performance for that model. Section 4.3 reports only boxplots over ten runs, with no significance tests, and the test set contains just 101 fraud positives, so a few prediction flips could move the F1 and recall numbers. No code or data are released, so the 40-iteration QSNN-QLSTM result cannot be independently checked. There is also a small internal inconsistency: the parameter list for QSNN-QLSTM includes a 10x2 linear layer that is hard to reconcile with the described 10-dimensional QLSTM input. That is minor compared to the experimental protocol, but it adds to the difficulty of taking the numbers at face value.

What the paper does well: the LIF derivation and the LSTM background are competent, the parameter-counting is explicit, and the idea that a hybrid quantum spiking plus quantum recurrent model might be data-hungry in the low-data regime is worth a look. The three-phase training (pre-train QSNN, single-pass QLSTM, co-train) is clearly described, even if the neuroscience framing is decorative rather than explanatory.

The soft spots are load-bearing. The claimed superiority is fitted, not predicted: hyperparameters were chosen after multiple trials for each model, so the comparison is closer to a model-selection exercise than a controlled benchmark. That alone is enough to reject the paper in its current form. The architecture might still be useful, but the evidence would need a proper re-benchmark with matched data and iteration budgets, paired significance tests, and ideally released code.

Who is this for? Quantum machine learning folks who want a concrete example of a hybrid quantum spike-and-recurrence design on tabular data. It belongs in a reading group as a case study in benchmarking pitfalls, not as an accepted result. A serious editor could send it to peer review because the architectural idea deserves scrutiny, but acceptance would require a substantially revised experimental section and code release. As it stands, this is a reject with a specific path to resubmission.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a hybrid quantum spiking neural network (QSNN) combined with a quantum long short-term memory (QLSTM) model for credit card fraud detection, and compares it with classical ANN, LSTM, SNN and quantum QNN, QLSTM, QSNN baselines on the standard Kaggle dataset. The authors report 10-run F1, AUC, recall, and precision results, and claim that QSNN-QLSTM consistently outperforms the other models while using fewer parameters, less training data, and fewer iterations. The paper also describes a three-phase training pipeline (pre-training QSNN, single-pass QLSTM training, then joint co-training) and discusses the limitations of quantum simulators.

Significance. The conceptual combination of a spiking quantum front-end and a recurrent quantum memory is a plausible research direction, and the paper's emphasis on data efficiency for quantum models is timely. However, the central empirical claim is not established because the comparison is uncontrolled: training set sizes, optimizers, batch sizes, iteration counts, and validation splits differ across models, and hyperparameters were tuned per model without a stated protocol or any significance testing. If the claim were substantiated with a matched experimental design and statistical analysis, the architecture would be a useful contribution to quantum machine learning and anomaly detection; as presented, the evidence is insufficient. The paper also provides no code or data release, which limits reproducibility.

major comments (4)

[§4.2, Tables 1-2] The comparison is uncontrolled. Quantum models were trained on 1,390 samples (390 fraud + 1,000 non-fraud) whereas classical models used 5,390 samples (390 fraud + 5,000 non-fraud), with different optimizers (SGD, Adam, RMSprop), batch sizes (64-256), iteration counts (40-700), and validation splits of different absolute sizes. The paper states that hyperparameters, optimizers, and iteration counts were 'conducted experimentally through multiple trials to achieve the best performance for each model,' but it never specifies the data used in those trials or a protocol that prevents the test set from influencing the choices. The reported advantage of QSNN-QLSTM may therefore be an artifact of per-model tuning rather than an architectural property.
[§4.3, Figs. 11-14] Results are reported only as 10-run boxplots, without statistical significance tests, confidence intervals, or paired comparisons. Because the test set contains only 101 fraud positives, the observed differences in F1, recall, and AUC among the top models could be produced by a handful of changed predictions and may lie within sampling noise. The claim that QSNN-QLSTM 'consistently surpasses other models' is also contradicted by Fig. 14, in which SNN attains the highest precision and QSNN-QLSTM is a close second.
[§4.2, QSNN-QLSTM parameter list] The architecture description for QSNN-QLSTM is internally inconsistent: the parameter list includes a linear layer of size 10×2+2 after the QLIF1 cell, yet the following QLSTM preprocessing layer is given as 10×20+20, implying a 10-dimensional input to the QLSTM. It is unclear whether the evaluated model matches the described graph, and the manuscript provides no code to resolve the ambiguity.
[§4.2–§4.3] The claim that quantum models 'require fewer iterations' is tautological given the experimental design, because the iteration count for each model was intentionally set to the point at which that model converged. With per-model stopping criteria, the number of iterations is not an independent advantage, and no runtimes or convergence thresholds are reported to make the comparison meaningful.

minor comments (5)

[Keywords and Figure 14 caption] The manuscript contains numerous typographical errors and misspellings, e.g., 'Annomaly Detection' in the keywords, 'Presicion' in the Fig. 14 caption, 'clasification', 'hiperbolic', and 'subsenquently'; these should be corrected.
[§2.1, Eq. (14)] Equation (14) presents the chain rule with brace notation that is garbled in the PDF; the intended expression should be reformatted so that the surrogate gradient substitution is readable.
[§4.1] The dataset is described as having 30 features including 28 PCA-transformed features and the transaction amount, which sums to 29; the standard Kaggle credit card dataset also includes a 'Time' feature. Please clarify the exact feature set used.
[References] References [11] and [37] appear to duplicate the same source (the snnTorch / training SNNs paper) in different venues; these should be unified.
[Fig. 15] Figure 15 uses different y-axis scales across panels, so the visual claim of 'consistent progression' and 'variance decreases' is not supported; provide comparable axes or quantitative convergence statistics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported QSNN-QLSTM advantage is an empirical comparison, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central assertion, that QSNN-QLSTM 'consistently surpasses other models' on F1, AUC, and recall, is presented as an experimental outcome (Sections 4.3 and 5) supported by boxplots and learning curves. No equation or construction in the paper defines this advantage in terms of the model's inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Section 4.2 does state that hyperparameters, optimizers, and iteration counts were 'conducted experimentally through multiple trials to achieve the best performance for each model.' That is a limitation of experimental control and statistical inference, not circularity: the reported test metrics are not the same quantity as the tuning choices, and the superiority is not forced by those choices. The unequal training-set sizes (1,390 quantum vs. 5,390 classical samples), the absence of significance tests, and the unreleased code are validity concerns, not reductions by construction. The only overlapping-author citation, [6], is used in the introduction as background evidence that QNNs can outperform classical models in reinforcement learning; it is not load-bearing for the architecture or for the fraud-detection comparison. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior work by the same authors. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on hand-chosen training budgets and circuits, library defaults, and an unstated assumption that the test set was not used for model selection. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

Per-model training set sizes = Quantum: 390 fraud + 1,000 non-fraud; classical: 390 fraud + 5,000 non-fraud
Section 4.2: different data volumes are chosen per model to demonstrate data efficiency; this hand-set condition directly affects the comparison.
Per-model iteration counts = ANN 700, LSTM/SNN 350, QNN 70, QLSTM 100, QSNN 80, QSNN-QLSTM 40
Section 4.2 and Table 2: chosen by observing convergence after multiple trials; unequal training budgets confound the comparison.
Per-model optimizers, learning rates, batch sizes = ANN SGD 1e-2/128; LSTM Adam 1e-3/128; SNN Adam 1e-3/64; QNN RMSprop 1e-2/256; QLSTM Adam 1e-2/256; QSNN SGD 1e-3/64…
Tables 1-2: selected experimentally to achieve the best performance for each model, introducing selection bias into the central claim.
Quantum circuit hyperparameters = 5 qubits; QLSTM 4 VQC blocks with 3 layers; QSNN 1-2 QLIF cells with 10 hidden neurons
Section 4.2: chosen by hand with no sensitivity analysis, so the reported performance is conditional on unexamined choices.
Spiking time steps = 25
Table 2: SNN, QSNN, and QSNN-QLSTM all use 25 time steps; no ablation shows sensitivity to this choice.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The snnTorch and PennyLane library implementations (surrogate gradient, LIF dynamics, state-vector simulation, automatic differentiation) are correct as used.
The paper relies on library defaults for QSNN training and quantum simulation without verifying them independently (Section 3).
domain assumption The Kaggle credit card fraud labels and features are accurate and representative for fraud detection.
The dataset is treated as ground truth with no error model or discussion of label noise (Section 4.1).
domain assumption Amplitude encoding of 30 normalized features into 5 qubits preserves the information needed for classification.
The paper assumes the chosen encoding and ansatz can represent useful decision boundaries (Section 3, QNN and QSNN descriptions).
domain assumption The standard LSTM equations in Section 2.2 and the VQC replacement for each gate in QLSTM are equivalent to a learnable recurrent model.
No proof or reference is given for why substituting VQCs for gate networks retains LSTM functionality (Section 3).
ad hoc to paper Hyperparameters were chosen without consulting the test set.
The paper says hyperparameters were selected through multiple trials to achieve the best performance but does not explicitly restrict this to the validation split (Section 4.2); if false, the results are optimistically biased.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Brain-Inspired Quantum Neural Architectures for Pattern Recognition: Integrating QSNN and QLSTM." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5JJLORGQ

@misc{pith2026250501735,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Brain-Inspired Quantum Neural Architectures for Pattern Recognition: Integrating QSNN and QLSTM},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5JJLORGQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01735}
}

read the original abstract

Recent advances in the fields of deep learning and quantum computing have paved the way for innovative developments in artificial intelligence. In this manuscript, we leverage these cutting-edge technologies to introduce a novel model that emulates the intricate functioning of the human brain, designed specifically for the detection of anomalies such as fraud in credit card transactions. Leveraging the synergies of Quantum Spiking Neural Networks (QSNN) and Quantum Long Short-Term Memory (QLSTM) architectures, our approach is developed in two distinct stages, closely mirroring the information processing mechanisms found in the brain's sensory and memory systems. In the initial stage, similar to the brain's hypothalamus, we extract low-level information from the data, emulating sensory data processing patterns. In the subsequent stage, resembling the hippocampus, we process this information at a higher level, capturing and memorizing correlated patterns. We will compare this model with other quantum models such as Quantum Neural Networks among others and their corresponding classical models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01735 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Leaky Integrate-and-Fire Neuron Model [11]. An insulating lipid bilayer membrane separates the interior and exterior environments. Gated ion channels enable the diffusion of charge carriers like Na+ across the membrane.1a. RC circuit models neuron function. When the membrane potential exceeds the threshold, a spike is generated. 1b. Input spikes are transmitted to the neuron body through dendritic branches. Sufficie… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Typical morphology of a neuron. Consisting of a cell body, or soma, which contains the nucleus and other [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** SNN pipeline. Input data for an SNN can be transformed into a firing rate or other encodings to generate spikes. The network is subsequently trained to predict the correct class, employing encoding strategies such as the highest firing rate or firing first, among others cycles around the network’s recurrent connections. This is the vanishing gradient problem, being the second problem to overcome using LSTM [21, 22].… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (12 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: LSTM Cell Architecture: Featuring three essential gates (forget, input and output gates). The σ and tanh blocks symbolize the sigmoid and hyperbolic tangent activation functions, respectively. xt denotes the input at time t, ht represents the hidden state, and ct signi…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: General VQC Schema. The dashed gray line encompasses the steps executed in a Quantum Processing Unit (QPU) and the dashed blue line shows the steps executed in a CPU. 4. Measurement Process (QPU/CPU): Measuring the quantum state and decoding it to obtain the desired ou…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: QNN architecture. This architecture entails a pre-processing step where classical data undergoes normalization, a pre-requisite for the subsequent encoding strategy. Then, the amplitud encoding algorithm is applied, utilizing only log2N qubits, where N correspond to nu…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: QLSTM Cell. Each VQC box is the form as detailed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: QLSTM Architecture. The input data passes trough an initial classical layer, which receives the 30 inputs data and produces 80 outputs, corresponding to the concatenated size formed by the input dimension and hidden size. This output then passes trough a second classic…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: QSNN Architecture. This architecture involves an encoding step where classical data is translated into spikes. The network comprises two LIFs orchestrated by VQC and is trained using gradient descent to accurately predict the correct class using various encoding strate…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Training Process of QSNN-QLSTM. Step I involves the iterative training of QSNN. An original instance of QSNN (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Boxplots illustrating the distribution of F1 score obtained from quantum (QNN, QLSTM, QSNN and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Boxplots illustrating the distribution of AUC score obtained from quantum (QNN, QLSTM, QSNN and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Boxplots illustrating the distribution of Recall score obtained from quantum (QNN, QLSTM, QSNN and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Boxplots illustrating the distribution of Presicion score obtained from quantum (QNN, QLSTM, QSNN and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Learning curves obtained from seven models. Three classical models: ANN, SNN and LSTM. Four quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[1]

When brain-inspired ai meets agi

Lin Zhao, Lu Zhang, Zihao Wu, Yuzhong Chen, Haixing Dai, Xiaowei Yu, Zhengliang Liu, Tuo Zhang, Xintao Hu, Xi Jiang, Xiang Li, Dajiang Zhu, Dinggang Shen, and Tianming Liu. When brain-inspired ai meets agi. Meta-Radiology, 1(1):100005, 2023

work page 2023
[2]

Svore, and Nathan Wiebe

Maria Schuld, Alex Bocharov, Krysta M. Svore, and Nathan Wiebe. Circuit-centric quantum classifiers.Phys. Rev. A, 101:032308, 2020

work page 2020
[3]

Nathan Wiebe, Ashish Kapoor, and Krysta M. Svore. Quantum nearest-neighbor algorithms for machine learning. Quantum Information and Computation, 15:318–358, 2015

work page 2015
[4]

Anguita, Sandro Ridella, Fabio Rivieccio, and Rodolfo Zunino

D. Anguita, Sandro Ridella, Fabio Rivieccio, and Rodolfo Zunino. Quantum optimization for training support vector machines.Neural networks, 16:763–770, 2003

work page 2003
[5]

Quantum speed-up for unsupervised learning.Machine Learning, 90:261–287, 2013

Esma Aïmeur, Gilles Brassard, and Sébastien Gambs. Quantum speed-up for unsupervised learning.Machine Learning, 90:261–287, 2013. 19

work page 2013
[6]

On the use of quantum reinforcement learning in energy-efficiency scenarios.Energies, 15, 2022

Eva Andrés, Manuel Pegalajar Cuéllar, and Gabriel Navarro. On the use of quantum reinforcement learning in energy-efficiency scenarios.Energies, 15, 2022

work page 2022
[7]

Miller and Jonathan D

Earl K. Miller and Jonathan D. Cohen. An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function.Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24(1):167–202, March 2001

work page 2001
[8]

Atkinson and R.M

R.C. Atkinson and R.M. Shiffrin. Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In Kenneth W. SpenceandJanetTaylorSpence,editors, HumanMemory: AProposedSystemanditsControlProcesses. ,volume2 of Psychology of Learning and Motivation, pages 89–195. Academic Press, 1968

work page 1968

Show all 40 references

[9]

Oxford university press, 2007

Per Andersen.The hippocampus book. Oxford university press, 2007

2007
[10]

Hippocampus, space, and memory.Behavioral and Brain sciences, 2(3):313–322, 1979

David S Olton, James T Becker, and Gail E Handelmann. Hippocampus, space, and memory.Behavioral and Brain sciences, 2(3):313–322, 1979

1979
[11]

Eshraghian, Max Ward, Emre Neftci, Xinxin Wang, Gregor Lenz, Girish Dwivedi, Mohammed Bennamoun, Doo Seok Jeong, and Wei D

Jason K. Eshraghian, Max Ward, Emre Neftci, Xinxin Wang, Gregor Lenz, Girish Dwivedi, Mohammed Bennamoun, Doo Seok Jeong, and Wei D. Lu. Training spiking neural networks using lessons from deep learning, 2021

2021
[12]

LearningphraserepresentationsusingRNNencoder–decoderforstatisticalmachinetranslation

KyunghyunCho,BartvanMerriënboer,CaglarGulcehre,DzmitryBahdanau,FethiBougares,HolgerSchwenk,and YoshuaBengio. LearningphraserepresentationsusingRNNencoder–decoderforstatisticalmachinetranslation. In Alessandro Moschitti, Bo Pang, and Walter Daelemans, editors,Proceedings of the...

2014
[13]

Hebb.The Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological Theory

D.O. Hebb.The Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological Theory. Taylor & Francis, 2005

2005
[14]

Deep learning in spiking neural networks.Neural Networks, 111:47–63, 2019

Amirhossein Tavanaei, Masoud Ghodrati, Saeed Reza Kheradpisheh, Timothée Masquelier, and Anthony Maida. Deep learning in spiking neural networks.Neural Networks, 111:47–63, 2019

2019
[15]

Lobo, Javier Del Ser, Albert Bifet, and Nikola Kasabov

Jesus L. Lobo, Javier Del Ser, Albert Bifet, and Nikola Kasabov. Spiking neural networks and online learning: An overview and perspectives.Neural Networks, 121:88–100, 2020

2020
[16]

Recherches quantitatives sur l’excitation electrique des nerfs.J

LM Lapicque. Recherches quantitatives sur l’excitation electrique des nerfs.J. Physiol. Paris., 9:620–635, 1907

1907
[17]

Memory-inspired spiking hyperdimensional network for robust online learning.Scientific Reports, 12(1):7641, May 2022

ZhuowenZou,HalehAlimohamadi,AliZakeri,FarhadImani,YeseongKim,M.HassanNajafi,andMohsenImani. Memory-inspired spiking hyperdimensional network for robust online learning.Scientific Reports, 12(1):7641, May 2022

2022
[18]

Brain-inspiredspikingneuralnetworksfordecoding and understanding muscle activity and kinematics from electroencephalography signals during hand movements

KaushalyaKumarasinghe,NikolaKasabov,andDeniseTaylor. Brain-inspiredspikingneuralnetworksfordecoding and understanding muscle activity and kinematics from electroencephalography signals during hand movements. Scientific Reports, 11(1):2486, Jan 2021

2021
[19]

Andrea Banino, Caswell Barry, Benigno Uria, Charles Blundell, Timothy Lillicrap, Piotr Mirowski, Alexander Pritzel, Martin J. Chadwick, Thomas Degris, Joseph Modayil, Greg Wayne, Hubert Soyer, Fabio Viola, Brian Zhang, Ross Goroshin, Neil Rabinowitz, Razvan Pascanu, Charlie Be...

2018
[20]

Bengio, P

Y. Bengio, P. Simard, and P. Frasconi. Learning long-term dependencies with gradient descent is difficult.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 5:157–166, 1994

1994
[21]

A novel connectionist system for unconstrained handwriting recognition.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 31:855–868, 2009

Alex Graves, Marcus Liwicki, Santiago Fernández, Roman Bertolami, Horst Bunke, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. A novel connectionist system for unconstrained handwriting recognition.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 31:855–868, 2009

2009
[22]

Alex Graves and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Framewise phoneme classification with bidirectional lstm and other neural network architectures.Neural networks : the official journal of the International Neural Network Society, 18:602–610, 2005

2005
[23]

Lstm can solve hard long time lag problems.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 9:473–479, 1996

Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Lstm can solve hard long time lag problems.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 9:473–479, 1996

1996
[24]

Maida, and Ashok Kumar

Anthony Triche, Anthony S. Maida, and Ashok Kumar. Exploration in neo-hebbian reinforcement learning: Computational approaches to the exploration–exploitation balance with bio-inspired neural networks.Neural Networks, 151:16–33, 2022

2022
[25]

A variational algorithm for quantum neural networks

Antonio Macaluso, Luca Clissa, Stefano Lodi, and Claudio Sartori. A variational algorithm for quantum neural networks. InComputational Science – ICCS 2020, pages 591–604. Springer International Publishing, 2020

2020
[26]

Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models.Quantum Science and Technology, 4(4):043001, nov 2019

Marcello Benedetti, Erika Lloyd, Stefan Sack, and Mattia Fiorentini. Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models.Quantum Science and Technology, 4(4):043001, nov 2019. 20

2019
[27]

Qdnn: deepneuralnetworkswithquantumlayers

ChenZhaoandXiao-ShanGao. Qdnn: deepneuralnetworkswithquantumlayers. QuantumMachineIntelligence , 3:15, 2021

2021
[28]

Recent advances for quantum neural networks in generative learning.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(10):12321–12340, 2023

JinkaiTian,XiaoyuSun,YuxuanDu,ShanshanZhao,QingLiu,KainingZhang,WeiYi,WanrongHuang,Chaoyue Wang, Xingyao Wu, Min-Hsiu Hsieh, Tongliang Liu, Wenjing Yang, and Dacheng Tao. Recent advances for quantum neural networks in generative learning.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis a...

2023
[29]

Quantum self-attention neural networks for text classification

Guangxi Li, Xuanqiang Zhao, and Xin Wang. Quantum self-attention neural networks for text classification. Science China Information Sciences, 67(4):142501, 2024

2024
[30]

Elsevier, 2014

Peter Wittek.Quantum Machine Learning: What Quantum Computing means to data mining. Elsevier, 2014

2014
[31]

Expanding data encoding patterns for quantum algorithms

Manuela Weigold, Johanna Barzen, Frank Leymann, and Marie Salm. Expanding data encoding patterns for quantum algorithms. In2021 IEEE 18th International Conference on Software Architecture Companion (ICSA-C), pages 95–101, 2021

2021
[32]

Michael McCloskey and Neal J. Cohen. Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential learning problem. In Gordon H. Bower, editor,Catastrophic Interference in Connectionist Networks: The Sequential Learning Problem, volume 24 ofPsychology of Learning and Mo...

1989
[33]

Continual learning through synaptic intelligence

Friedemann Zenke, Ben Poole, and Surya Ganguli. Continual learning through synaptic intelligence. In Doina Precup and Yee Whye Teh, editors,Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 70 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 3987–39...

2017
[34]

Progressive neural networks.CoRR, abs/1606.04671, 2016

AndreiA.Rusu,NeilC.Rabinowitz,GuillaumeDesjardins,HubertSoyer,JamesKirkpatrick,KorayKavukcuoglu, Razvan Pascanu, and Raia Hadsell. Progressive neural networks.CoRR, abs/1606.04671, 2016

2016 arXiv
[35]

Continuallearningwithdeepgenerativereplay

HanulShin,JungKwonLee,JaehongKim,andJiwonKim. Continuallearningwithdeepgenerativereplay. CoRR, abs/1705.08690, 2017

2017 arXiv
[36]

Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks.CoRR, abs/1612.00796, 2016

JamesKirkpatrick,RazvanPascanu,NeilC.Rabinowitz,JoelVeness,GuillaumeDesjardins,AndreiA.Rusu,Kieran Milan, John Quan, Tiago Ramalho, Agnieszka Grabska-Barwinska, Demis Hassabis, Claudia Clopath, Dharshan Kumaran, and Raia Hadsell. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural ne...

2016 arXiv
[37]

Training spiking neural networks using lessons from deep learning.Proceedings of the IEEE, 111(9):1016–1054, 2023

JasonKEshraghian,MaxWard,EmreNeftci,XinxinWang,GregorLenz,GirishDwivedi,MohammedBennamoun, Doo Seok Jeong, and Wei D Lu. Training spiking neural networks using lessons from deep learning.Proceedings of the IEEE, 111(9):1016–1054, 2023

2023
[38]

A survey on concept drift adaptation.ACM computing surveys (CSUR), 46(4):1–37, 2014

João Gama, Indr˙e Žliobait˙e, Albert Bifet, Mykola Pechenizkiy, and Abdelhamid Bouchachia. A survey on concept drift adaptation.ACM computing surveys (CSUR), 46(4):1–37, 2014

2014
[39]

Ensemble learning for data stream analysis: A survey.Information Fusion, 37:132–156, 2017

Bartosz Krawczyk, Leandro L Minku, João Gama, Jerzy Stefanowski, and Michał Woźniak. Ensemble learning for data stream analysis: A survey.Information Fusion, 37:132–156, 2017

2017
[40]

Incremental on-line learning: A review and comparison of state of the art algorithms.Neurocomputing, 275:1261–1274, 2018

Viktor Losing, Barbara Hammer, and Heiko Wersing. Incremental on-line learning: A review and comparison of state of the art algorithms.Neurocomputing, 275:1261–1274, 2018. 21

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

When brain-inspired ai meets agi

Lin Zhao, Lu Zhang, Zihao Wu, Yuzhong Chen, Haixing Dai, Xiaowei Yu, Zhengliang Liu, Tuo Zhang, Xintao Hu, Xi Jiang, Xiang Li, Dajiang Zhu, Dinggang Shen, and Tianming Liu. When brain-inspired ai meets agi. Meta-Radiology, 1(1):100005, 2023

work page 2023

[2] [2]

Svore, and Nathan Wiebe

Maria Schuld, Alex Bocharov, Krysta M. Svore, and Nathan Wiebe. Circuit-centric quantum classifiers.Phys. Rev. A, 101:032308, 2020

work page 2020

[3] [3]

Nathan Wiebe, Ashish Kapoor, and Krysta M. Svore. Quantum nearest-neighbor algorithms for machine learning. Quantum Information and Computation, 15:318–358, 2015

work page 2015

[4] [4]

Anguita, Sandro Ridella, Fabio Rivieccio, and Rodolfo Zunino

D. Anguita, Sandro Ridella, Fabio Rivieccio, and Rodolfo Zunino. Quantum optimization for training support vector machines.Neural networks, 16:763–770, 2003

work page 2003

[5] [5]

Quantum speed-up for unsupervised learning.Machine Learning, 90:261–287, 2013

Esma Aïmeur, Gilles Brassard, and Sébastien Gambs. Quantum speed-up for unsupervised learning.Machine Learning, 90:261–287, 2013. 19

work page 2013

[6] [6]

On the use of quantum reinforcement learning in energy-efficiency scenarios.Energies, 15, 2022

Eva Andrés, Manuel Pegalajar Cuéllar, and Gabriel Navarro. On the use of quantum reinforcement learning in energy-efficiency scenarios.Energies, 15, 2022

work page 2022

[7] [7]

Miller and Jonathan D

Earl K. Miller and Jonathan D. Cohen. An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function.Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24(1):167–202, March 2001

work page 2001

[8] [8]

Atkinson and R.M

R.C. Atkinson and R.M. Shiffrin. Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In Kenneth W. SpenceandJanetTaylorSpence,editors, HumanMemory: AProposedSystemanditsControlProcesses. ,volume2 of Psychology of Learning and Motivation, pages 89–195. Academic Press, 1968

work page 1968