Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

A short review on qudit quantum machine learning

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Qudits—d-level quantum systems—can make quantum machine learning circuits shorter and more expressive than qubit circuits.

desk verdict A useful, competent survey of qudit QML that overstates its evidence; worth refereeing but the authors should temper the fidelity claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05158 v1 pith:N4NCYM4Y submitted 2025-05-08 quant-ph

Tiago de Souza Farias , Lucas Friedrich , Jonas Maziero This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quditsquantummachinelearningvariationalalgorithmsneuralnetworksQAOAGell-MannfeaturemapqutritNISQdevices
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This review makes the case that the qubit is not the only—or always the best—unit for quantum machine learning. It argues that qudits, quantum systems with d > 2 basis states, store more information per physical system and support a richer rotation algebra, so variational quantum algorithms and quantum neural networks built from them can be shallower, use fewer parameters, and still match or beat qubit models on classification and optimization tasks. The review supports the case with recent hardware demonstrations on superconducting transmons and with comparative numerical studies, and it maps the remaining control, noise, and software bottlenecks. The practical stake is concrete: if the compressed-circuit claim holds, noisy near-term quantum devices could run learning tasks that their qubit-only versions cannot reach at the same fidelity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the qudit register and its $\mathrm{SU}(d)$ algebra. A d-level system holds $\log_2 d$ bits and has a $(d^2-1)$-dimensional generalized Bloch sphere; the Gell-Mann feature map is a named qutrit encoding that places classical inputs on that eight-dimensional sphere. These structures supply the argument's mechanism: wider rotation space per physical unit grants expressivity without extra entangling gates, natural d-ary encodings remove binary overhead, and shorter circuits reduce accumulated decoherence even when individual gates are noisier.

What would settle it

Run one fixed benchmark, such as 3-class classification or graph 3-coloring, on calibrated hardware with an optimized qutrit circuit and an optimized qubit circuit; tally end-to-end success probability and accumulated error at matched solution quality. If the qubit version matches the qutrit version's accuracy at equal or lower end-to-end error in the regime where the circuits have comparable depth, the claim that qudit compression reduces net decoherence fails in that setting.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own framing, the central claim is that qudits are a resource-efficient alternative to qubits for QML, not a niche exoticism. An n-qudit register spans $d^n$ states, a qutrit carries $\log_2 3 \approx 1.53$ bits, and $\mathrm{SU}(d)$ rotations give $d^2-1$ independent directions, so a single qudit can draw nonlinear decision boundaries that would otherwise need entangling several qubits. The survey points to a four-level transmon emulating two qubits in a VQE within chemical accuracy, a qutrit QAOA for graph 3-coloring that uses half the two-qubit gates per layer, a ternary Toffoli decomposition using four transmon operations rather than eight, and qutrit quantum neural networks that reach target accuracy with fewer parameters. Its conclusion is that qudit architectures reduce circuit depth and parameter counts while keeping competitive fidelity, which is the property that matters on noisy devices.

Load-bearing premise

The case rests on the assumption, adopted from earlier studies and not re-derived here, that a qudit circuit can be shortened so much that its total accumulated error is smaller than a qubit circuit's even though each qudit gate is individually noisier.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On noisy near-term hardware, quantum machine learning tasks that are currently depth-limited could absorb qudits as a resource reduction: the same Hilbert-space work with fewer physical units and fewer entangling gates.
  • Problems with naturally multi-valued variables—three-class classification, graph 3-coloring, spin-1 simulation—can be mapped directly, eliminating binary encodings, penalty terms, and wasted basis states.
  • Training machinery must be adapted: parameter-shift gradient rules become more expensive for higher-dimensional gates, and barren plateaus are known to worsen with qudit dimension, so existing mitigation ideas need reworking.
  • Software infrastructure is moving from qubit-only to qubit-qudit simulation and compilation; differentiable qudit simulators make gradient-based training of these circuits practical.
  • The relevant hardware comparison becomes end-to-end fidelity rather than per-gate error rate, so today's per-gate fidelity gap between qudits and qubits does not, by itself, decide the question.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The compression argument extends beyond learning: algorithms dominated by multi-controlled gates, such as arithmetic or search oracles, should inherit the same qudit savings, since the Toffoli example is not QML-specific.
  • A quantitative crossover threshold—how much noisier each qudit gate may be before the shorter-circuit benefit is wiped out—would turn the review's trade-off into a design rule; the review does not derive that number.
  • The single-qudit nonlinear classifier hints that high-dimensional local rotations may substitute for entanglement in some learning tasks, a testable architectural hypothesis that would reshape how QML models are compared.
  • As compilers mature, automatic qubit-qudit partitioning—compiling some subcircuits to d-level systems and leaving others binary—could be the most direct route to practical adoption, extending the review's note that hybrid approaches are coming.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is a short review of qudit-based quantum machine learning (QML). It argues that encoding information in d-level systems rather than qubits can benefit variational quantum algorithms and quantum neural networks by enlarging the local Hilbert space, enabling richer SU(d) feature maps, reducing circuit depth and parameter counts, and mapping multi-valued problems more naturally. The review surveys representative applications (transmon qudit VQE, qutrit QAOA for graph coloring, qudit classifiers, data re-uploading), discusses the software ecosystem (Cirq, MQT Qudits, QuDiet, QuForge, QuTiP), and closes with hardware challenges, open theoretical questions, and a cautiously optimistic outlook.

Significance. The review is timely and potentially useful as a compact entry point to qudit QML. It collects a reasonable set of experimental and numerical demonstrations and gives a clear taxonomy of the proposed advantages and current limitations. Its main technical claim, that qudits offer a favorable trade-off for NISQ-era QML, is plausible but is not established quantitatively in the manuscript. The review's own Section VI honestly admits that comparisons are case-by-case and that no comprehensive understanding exists, which is a strength; however, the introduction and conclusion occasionally state the advantage in stronger terms than the assembled evidence supports. The strengths are the breadth of the survey, the concrete examples, and the explicit identification of open problems, while the main weakness is the lack of a quantitative or at least carefully scoped analysis of the net-decoherence premise that underpins the practical benefit.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II] The load-bearing premise that 'because qudit circuits can be much shorter, the net decoherence over an algorithm can decrease despite noisier gates [16]-[20]' is cited but never re-derived or quantitatively justified in a QML context. References [16]-[20] include work on gate-efficiency conditions, quantum steering, qudit error-correcting codes, and magic-state distillation, which are not demonstrations for QML workloads. A shorter circuit reduces the number of operations but the per-gate error rate of qudit operations is typically higher, so the net end-to-end fidelity depends on the ratio of depth reduction to per-gate error increase. I recommend either (a) deriving an explicit condition, e.g., total error scaling as 1 - (1 - epsilon_q)^(D_q) vs. 1 - (1 - epsilon_b)^(D_b), applied to the cited experimental parameters, or (b) explicitly reframing this claim as an open assumption rather than an established advantage.
  2. [Section VII] The conclusion states that qudit-based classifiers 'even achieve tasks unattainable by equivalent qubit networks.' This is not supported by any specific evidence cited in the review, and it conflicts with Section VI, which admits 'we still lack a comprehensive understanding of when and why a qudit-based QML model outperforms a qubit one' and that 'current evidence is often case-by-case.' Unless the authors can point to a specific result with a proven separation (not just an empirical demonstration on a particular dataset), this sentence should be removed or replaced with a statement about empirical advantages in specific case studies. The same applies to the stronger phrasing in the abstract and introduction that qudits are 'a powerful tool for NISQ-era quantum machine learning'.
  3. [Sections II and III] The quantitative hardware example used to illustrate resource savings, the qudit Toffoli decomposition from [24], is a single gate and not a QML circuit. The reported fidelity improvement is described as 'modest,' and the comparison is between one qutrit and multiple qubits with different error channels and calibration overhead. This example does not by itself validate the central claim that qudit QML circuits reduce net decoherence. I recommend adding a quantitative comparison from one of the QML demonstrations discussed in the paper, or clearly labeling the Toffoli example as an illustration of gate-count reduction rather than as evidence for a QML fidelity advantage.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV] The sentence 'loped an 8-dimensional Gell-Mann feature map for a qutrit' appears garbled or truncated; it should be completed (e.g., 'developed') and the appropriate reference should be cited explicitly.
  2. [References] References [7] and [44] are the same paper (Mandilara et al., 'Classification of data with a qudit, a geometric approach,' Quantum Machine Intelligence, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 17, 2024). Please merge the duplicate citation.
  3. [Section V] The first bullet is labeled 'Circ' but the text and reference [47] refer to 'Cirq'; please fix the typo.
  4. [Section V and Section VI] The QuForge description in Section V and the barren-plateau discussion in Section VI ('As demonstrated in [54]') concern the authors' own work. Neither is circular, but for transparency the manuscript should explicitly identify these as self-citations, for instance by saying 'our recent work' or adding a footnote.
  5. [Abstract] The phrase 'high-level superconducting transmons' should likely be 'higher-level superconducting transmons' to refer to multi-level transmon states.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a review whose central comparative claims are grounded in external experimental and theoretical studies, and the authors' self-citations are descriptive rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a review paper, not a derivation, so the standard circularity patterns do not apply. The central claim that qudits can reduce circuit depth and parameter counts while maintaining competitive fidelity is supported by citations to external works, including experimental demonstrations (e.g., the transmon qudit VQE, the qutrit QAOA for graph coloring, and the transmon qutrit data re-uploading classifier). The load-bearing premise in Section II that 'qudit circuits can be much shorter, the net decoherence over an algorithm can decrease despite noisier gates' is presented as a cited assumption from references [16]–[20]; it is not derived within the paper, but it is also not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, nor is it defined in terms of the paper's own conclusion. The two self-citations are QuForge in Section V and the barren-plateau result in Section VI. QuForge is described as one software tool among several in an ecosystem survey; the paper does not use QuForge to prove the qudit advantage. The barren-plateau citation supports a stated challenge ('increasing the dimension of qudits exacerbates the BP problem') and is used to raise an open question, not to establish the central claim. The review itself explicitly concedes the limits of the evidence in Section VI: 'we still lack a comprehensive understanding of when and why a qudit-based QML model outperforms a qubit one' and 'current evidence is often case-by-case.' This admission directly undercuts any interpretation that the review is forcing a conclusion from its own assumptions. No equation, fitted parameter, or self-citation chain reduces the paper's claims to its inputs. Accordingly, the appropriate finding is no circularity.

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

The central claim of the review rests on the reliability of the surveyed literature and the fairness of the comparative studies. No new free parameters or invented entities are introduced; the review is a synthesis of existing work.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The experimental and numerical results cited in the review are accurate and reproducible.
    The review's conclusions rest on the correctness of the surveyed literature.
  • domain assumption Comparative studies between qubit and qudit implementations use fair and equivalent architectures and optimization procedures.
    Unless the comparisons control for architecture and hyperparameters, the reported advantages of qudits could be artifacts.
  • domain assumption Qudit gate fidelities and noise models allow net decoherence to be lower than qubit circuits despite higher per-gate errors.
    This premise from Section II underpins the practical benefit of qudits.
  • domain assumption The software libraries described function as advertised.
    The assessment of the software ecosystem assumes the accuracy of the library documentation and examples.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A short review on qudit quantum machine learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N4NCYM4Y

@misc{pith2026250505158,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A short review on qudit quantum machine learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N4NCYM4Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05158}
}
read the original abstract

As quantum devices scale toward practical machine learning applications, the binary qubit paradigm faces expressivity and resource efficiency limitations. Multi-level quantum systems, or qudits, offer a promising alternative by harnessing a larger Hilbert space, enabling richer data embeddings, more compact variational circuits, and support for multi-valued problem structures. In this work, we review the role of qudits in quantum machine learning techniques, mainly variational quantum algorithms and quantum neural networks. Drawing on recent experimental demonstrations, including high-level superconducting transmons, qutrit-based combinatorial optimization, and single-qudit classifiers, we highlight how qudit architectures can reduce circuit depth and parameter counts while maintaining competitive fidelity. We further assess the evolving software ecosystem, from specialized simulators and differentiable-programming libraries to extensions of mainstream frameworks. We also identify key challenges in control complexity, noise management, and tooling maturity.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Noisy qudit vs multiple qubits: conditions on gate efficiency for enhancing fidelity,

    D. Jankovi ´c, J.-G. Hartmann, M. Ruben, and P.-A. Hervieux, “Noisy qudit vs multiple qubits: conditions on gate efficiency for enhancing fidelity,” npj Quantum Information , vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–10, Jun. 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [20]

    Towards Low Overhead Magic State Distillation,

    A. Krishna and J.-P. Tillich, “Towards Low Overhead Magic State Distillation,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 123, no. 7, p. 070507, Aug. 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [24]

    Implementing a Ternary Decomposition of the Toffoli Gate on Fixed-FrequencyTransmon Qutrits

    A. Galda, M. Cubeddu, N. Kanazawa, P. Narang, and N. Earnest-Noble, “Implementing a ternary decomposition of the toffoli gate on fixed- frequencytransmon qutrits,” arXiv:2109.00558, 2021

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  4. [1]

    On the properties of qudits,

    A. B. Balantekin and A. M. Suliga, “On the properties of qudits,” The European Physical Journal A , vol. 60, no. 6, p. 124, Jun. 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [2]

    Efficient real- ization of quantum algorithms with qudits,

    A. S. Nikolaeva, E. O. Kiktenko, and A. K. Fedorov, “Efficient real- ization of quantum algorithms with qudits,” EPJ Quantum Technology , vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–25, Dec. 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [3]

    Qudits and High- Dimensional Quantum Computing,

    Y . Wang, Z. Hu, B. C. Sanders, and S. Kais, “Qudits and High- Dimensional Quantum Computing,” Frontiers in Physics , vol. 8, Nov. 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [4]

    Qutrit-inspired fully self-supervised shallow quantum learning network for brain tumor segmentation,

    D. Konar, S. Bhattacharyya, B. K. Panigrahi, and E. C. Behrman, “Qutrit-inspired fully self-supervised shallow quantum learning network for brain tumor segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 6331–6345, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [5]

    Unlocking the high dimensional’ potential: Comparative analysis of qubits and qutrits in variational quantum neural networks,

    E. Acar and ˙Ihsan Yılmaz, “Unlocking the high dimensional’ potential: Comparative analysis of qubits and qutrits in variational quantum neural networks,” Neurocomputing, vol. 623, p. 129404, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 53 references
  1. [6]

    The gell-mann feature map of qutrits and its applications in classification tasks,

    T. Valtinos, A. Mandilara, and D. Syvridis, “The gell-mann feature map of qutrits and its applications in classification tasks,” arXiv:2312.11150, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond,

    J. Preskill, “Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond,” Quan- tum, vol. 2, p. 79, Aug. 2018

    2018

  3. [9]

    Generalised quantum gates for qudits and their application in quantum fourier transform,

    F. Pudda, M. Chizzini, and L. Crippa, “Generalised quantum gates for qudits and their application in quantum fourier transform,” arXiv:2410.05122, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Quforge: A library for qudits simulation,

    T. de Souza Farias, L. Friedrich, and J. Maziero, “Quforge: A library for qudits simulation,” arXiv:2409.17716, 2024. To appear in Computer Physics Communications (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Many-qudit representation for the travelling salesman problem optimi- sation,

    V . Vargas-Calder´on, N. Parra-A., H. Vinck-Posada, and F. A. Gonz ´alez, “Many-qudit representation for the travelling salesman problem optimi- sation,” Journal of the Physical Society of Japan , vol. 90, no. 11, p. 114002, Nov. 2021

    2021

  6. [12]

    Qudit- inspired optimization for graph coloring,

    D. Jansen, T. Heightman, L. Mortimer, I. Perito, and A. Ac ´ın, “Qudit- inspired optimization for graph coloring,” Physical Review Applied , vol. 22, no. 6, dec 2024

    2024

  7. [13]

    Qutrit circuits and algebraic relations: A pathway to efficient spin-1 hamiltonian simulation,

    O. Ogunkoya, J. Kim, B. Peng, A. B. i. e. i. f. m. c. ¨Ozg¨uler, and Y . Alexeev, “Qutrit circuits and algebraic relations: A pathway to efficient spin-1 hamiltonian simulation,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 109, p. 012426, Jan 2024

    2024

  8. [14]

    Universal qudit gate synthesis for transmons,

    L. E. Fischer, A. Chiesa, F. Tacchino, D. J. Egger, S. Carretta, and I. Tavernelli, “Universal qudit gate synthesis for transmons,” PRX Quantum, vol. 4, p. 030327, Aug 2023

    2023

  9. [15]

    Quantum error correction with molecular spin qudits,

    M. Chizzini, L. Crippa, L. Zaccardi, E. Macaluso, S. Carretta, A. Chiesa, and P. Santini, “Quantum error correction with molecular spin qudits,” Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics , vol. 24, no. 34, pp. 20 030– 20 039, Aug. 2022

    2022

  10. [17]

    Quick Quantum Steering: Overcoming Loss and Noise with Qudits,

    V . Srivastav, N. H. Valencia, W. McCutcheon, S. Leedumrong- watthanakun, S. Designolle, R. Uola, N. Brunner, and M. Malik, “Quick Quantum Steering: Overcoming Loss and Noise with Qudits,” Physical Review X, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 041023, Nov. 2022

    2022

  11. [18]

    Nonlinearity of the Fidelity in Open Qudit Systems: Gate and Noise Dependence in High-dimensional Quantum Computing,

    J.-G. Hartmann, D. Jankovi ´c, R. Pasquier, M. Ruben, and P.-A. Hervieux, “Nonlinearity of the Fidelity in Open Qudit Systems: Gate and Noise Dependence in High-dimensional Quantum Computing,” Quantum, vol. 9, p. 1690, Apr. 2025

    2025

  12. [19]

    Noise-adapted qudit codes for amplitude-damping noise,

    S. Dutta, D. Biswas, and P. Mandayam, “Noise-adapted qudit codes for amplitude-damping noise,” arXiv:2406.02444, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms in the noisy intermediate-scale quantum era and beyond,

    A. Callison and N. Chancellor, “Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms in the noisy intermediate-scale quantum era and beyond,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 106, p. 010101, Jul 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Generalized toffoli gate decomposition using ququints: Towards realizing grover’s algorithm with qudits,

    A. S. Nikolaeva, E. O. Kiktenko, and A. K. Fedorov, “Generalized toffoli gate decomposition using ququints: Towards realizing grover’s algorithm with qudits,” Entropy, vol. 25, no. 2, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Efficient toffoli gates using qudits,

    T. C. Ralph, K. J. Resch, and A. Gilchrist, “Efficient toffoli gates using qudits,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 75, p. 022313, Feb 2007

    2007

  16. [25]

    Exploring the potential of qutrits for quantum optimization of graph coloring,

    G. Bottrill, M. Pandey, and O. Di Matteo, “Exploring the potential of qutrits for quantum optimization of graph coloring,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 01, 2023, pp. 177–183

    2023

  17. [26]

    Three-dimensional compact photonic circuits for quantum state tomography of multipath qudits in any finite dimension,

    W. Cardoso, D. Barros, L. Neves, and S. P ´adua, “Three-dimensional compact photonic circuits for quantum state tomography of multipath qudits in any finite dimension,” Journal of Optics , vol. 23, 10 2021

    2021

  18. [27]

    Quantum circuit compression using qubit logic on qudits,

    L. Lysaght, T. Goubault, P. Sinnott, S. Mansfield, and P.-E. Eme- riau, “Quantum circuit compression using qubit logic on qudits,” arXiv:2411.03878, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Uncon- ditional advantage of noisy qudit quantum circuits over biased threshold circuits in constant depth,

    M. de Oliveira, S. Subramanian, L. Mendes, and M.-H. Hsieh, “Uncon- ditional advantage of noisy qudit quantum circuits over biased threshold circuits in constant depth,” Nature Communications , vol. 16, p. 3559, Apr. 2025

    2025

  20. [29]

    Variational quantum algorithms,

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

    2021

  21. [30]

    Variational quantum al- gorithms: fundamental concepts, applications and challenges,

    H. Qi, S. Xiao, Z. Liu, C. Gong, and A. Gani, “Variational quantum al- gorithms: fundamental concepts, applications and challenges,” Quantum Information Processing, vol. 23, no. 6, p. 224, Jun. 2024

    2024

  22. [31]

    Variational quantum state eigensolver,

    M. Cerezo, K. Sharma, A. Arrasmith, and P. J. Coles, “Variational quantum state eigensolver,” npj Quantum Information , vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–11, Sep. 2022

    2022

  23. [32]

    VQE method: a short survey and recent developments,

    D. A. Fedorov, B. Peng, N. Govind, and Y . Alexeev, “VQE method: a short survey and recent developments,” Materials Theory , vol. 6, no. 1, p. 2, Jan. 2022

    2022

  24. [33]

    A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, “A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,” Nature Communications , vol. 5, no. 1, p. 4213, Jul. 2014

    2014

  25. [34]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, “A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,” arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  26. [35]

    A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants,

    K. Blekos, D. Brand, A. Ceschini, C.-H. Chou, R.-H. Li, K. Pandya, and A. Summer, “A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants,” Physics Reports , vol. 1068, pp. 1–66, 2024

    2024

  27. [36]

    Emulating two qubits with a four-level transmon qudit for variational quantum algorithms,

    S. Cao, M. Bakr, G. Campanaro, S. D. Fasciati, J. Wills, D. Lall, B. Shteynas, V . Chidambaram, I. Rungger, and P. Leek, “Emulating two qubits with a four-level transmon qudit for variational quantum algorithms,” Quantum Science and Technology , vol. 9, no. 3, p. 035003, 2024

    2024

  28. [37]

    Qudit machine learn- ing,

    S. Roca-Jerat, J. Rom ´an-Roche, and D. Zueco, “Qudit machine learn- ing,” Machine Learning: Science and Technology , vol. 5, no. 1, p. 015057, Mar. 2024

    2024

  29. [38]

    A proposal for using molecular spin qudits as quantum simulators of light- matter interactions,

    F. Tacchino, A. Chiesa, R. Sessoli, I. Tavernelli, and S. Carretta, “A proposal for using molecular spin qudits as quantum simulators of light- matter interactions,” Journal of Materials Chemistry C , vol. 9, no. 32, pp. 10 266–10 275, Aug. 2021

    2021

  30. [39]

    Quantum approximate optimization algorithm for qudit systems,

    Y . Deller, S. Schmitt, M. Lewenstein, S. Lenk, M. Federer, F. Jendrze- jewski, P. Hauke, and V . Kasper, “Quantum approximate optimization algorithm for qudit systems,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 107, p. 062410, Jun 2023

    2023

  31. [40]

    Programming physical quantum systems with pulse-level control,

    K. N. Smith, G. S. Ravi, T. Alexander, N. T. Bronn, A. R. R. Carvalho, A. Cervera-Lierta, F. T. Chong, J. M. Chow, M. Cubeddu, A. Hashim, L. Jiang, O. Lanes, M. J. Otten, D. I. Schuster, P. Gokhale, N. Earnest, and A. Galda, “Programming physical quantum systems with pulse-lev...

    2022

  32. [41]

    Quantum circuit learning,

    K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii, “Quantum circuit learning,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 98, p. 032309, Sep 2018

    2018

  33. [42]

    General parameter- shift rules for quantum gradients,

    D. Wierichs, J. Izaac, C. Wang, and C. Y .-Y . Lin, “General parameter- shift rules for quantum gradients,” Quantum, vol. 6, p. 677, Mar. 2022

    2022

  34. [43]

    An analytical review of quantum neural network models and relevant research,

    S. Chakraborty, T. Das, S. Sutradhar, M. Das, and S. Deb, “An analytical review of quantum neural network models and relevant research,” in 2020 5th International Conference on Communication and Electronics Systems (ICCES) , 2020, pp. 1395–1400

    2020

  35. [44]

    Classification of data with a qudit, a geometric approach,

    A. Mandilara, B. Dellen, U. Jaekel, T. Valtinos, and D. Syvridis, “Classification of data with a qudit, a geometric approach,” Quantum Machine Intelligence, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 17, Mar. 2024

    2024

  36. [45]

    Data re-uploading with a single qudit,

    N. L. Wach, M. S. Rudolph, F. Jendrzejewski, and S. Schmitt, “Data re-uploading with a single qudit,” Quantum Machine Intelligence, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 36, Aug. 2023

    2023

  37. [46]

    Encoding optimization for quantum machine learning demonstrated on a superconducting transmon qutrit,

    S. Cao, W. Zhang, J. Tilly, A. Agarwal, M. Bakr, G. Campanaro, S. Fas- ciati, J. Wills, B. Shteynas, V . Chidambaram, P. Leek, and I. Rungger, “Encoding optimization for quantum machine learning demonstrated on a superconducting transmon qutrit,” Quantum Science and Technology...

    2024

  38. [47]

    Developers, “Cirq,” May 2024

    C. Developers, “Cirq,” May 2024

    2024

  39. [48]

    Mqt qudits: A software framework for mixed-dimensional quantum computing,

    K. Mato, M. Ringbauer, L. Burgholzer, and R. Wille, “Mqt qudits: A software framework for mixed-dimensional quantum computing,” arXiv:2410.02854, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Qudiet: A classical simulation platform for qubit-qudit hybrid quantum systems,

    T. Chatterjee, A. Das, S. K. Bala, A. Saha, A. Chattopadhyay, and A. Chakrabarti, “Qudiet: A classical simulation platform for qubit-qudit hybrid quantum systems,” IET Quantum Communication , vol. 4, no. 4, p. 167–180, Mar. 2023

    2023

  41. [50]

    Qutip: An open-source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems,

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, “Qutip: An open-source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems,” Computer Physics Communications , vol. 183, no. 8, pp. 1760–1772, 2012

    2012

  42. [51]

    Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum- classical computations,

    V . B. et al., “Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum- classical computations,” arXiv:1811.04968, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Quantum computing with qiskit,

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gambetta, “Quantum computing with qiskit,” arXiv:2405.08810, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Openqasm 3: A broader and deeper quantum assembly language,

    A. Cross, A. Javadi-Abhari, T. Alexander, N. De Beaudrap, L. S. Bishop, S. Heidel, C. A. Ryan, P. Sivarajah, J. Smolin, J. M. Gambetta, and B. R. Johnson, “Openqasm 3: A broader and deeper quantum assembly language,” ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing , vol. 3, no. 3, p. 1–...

    2022

  45. [54]

    Barren plateaus are amplified by the dimension of qudits,

    L. Friedrich, T. de Souza Farias, and J. Maziero, “Barren plateaus are amplified by the dimension of qudits,” Quantum Machine Intelligence , vol. 7, no. 1, p. 56, Apr. 2025

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.