Quantum Surrogate-Driven Image Classifier: A Gradient-Free Approach to Avoid Barren Plateaus

Yichen Xie

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Quantum Surrogate-Driven Image Classifier: A Gradient-Free Approach to Avoid Barren Plateaus

T0 review · 4 major / 3 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 The paper claims that a classical surrogate trained on circuit outputs replaces quantum gradients, letting deep quantum neural networks train past barren-plateau stalls and beat direct-gradient baselines on image benchmarks.

desk verdict The paper's central claim that a classical surrogate bypasses barren plateaus is assumed in Theorem 2 rather than proved, and the experiments do not show consistent superiority over classical baselines. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05249 v1 pith:KYQAMO36 submitted 2025-05-08 quant-ph

Yichen Xie This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords quantumneuralnetworksbarrenplateaussurrogatemodelgradient-freeoptimizationmid-circuitmeasurementancillaresetKrausoperatorsimageclassification

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that deep quantum neural networks for image classification can be trained without hitting barren-plateau stalls, by never computing quantum gradients directly. Instead, a classical neural network learns the local map from circuit parameters to measurement outcomes, and gradients for the classification loss are taken through that surrogate. To overcome the limited expressiveness of purely unitary circuits, four auxiliary qubits, called ancillas, are measured and reset after every layer, an operation the paper proves is a non-unitary but non-collapsing channel. Experiments on MNIST, CIFAR-10, and CIFAR-100 with 15-qubit, 6-layer circuits report higher accuracies than the same circuit trained by direct gradient computation, and accuracy close to or above classical CNNs with fewer parameters. If the claim is right, deep parameterized quantum circuits become trainable in practice and the recipe transfers to other quantum learning tasks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the classical surrogate model $S_w(\theta)$ trained by mean-squared error to match the circuit's measurement outcomes $m(\theta)$, combined with the measure-and-reset channel. The reset map gives Kraus operators (the effective action of each measurement branch on the main qubits) $K_x = \langle x|U$, so the effective channel $\Phi(\rho) = \sum_x K_x \rho K_x^\dagger$ is non-unitary and, across layers, nonlinear. The surrogate supplies gradients $\nabla_\theta S_w$ in place of $\nabla_\theta L$, bypassing parameter-shift rules and the exponential decay of circuit gradients. The argument that this works rests on a descent lemma: if $\|\nabla S - \nabla L\| \le \epsilon$ near $\theta_t$, then the update $\theta_{t+1} = \theta_t - \eta \nabla S$ decreases the true loss $L$ up to first order.

What would settle it

Compute both the true parameter-shift gradient and the surrogate gradient for the 15-qubit, 6-layer circuit at a set of random parameter points, using a practical sample budget consistent with the paper's training setup; if the surrogate gradient is not substantially larger than the true gradient or does not point downhill on the true loss, the plateau-avoidance claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a classical surrogate can replace quantum gradient computation in training a deep parameterized quantum circuit, and that interleaved ancilla measurement and reset turns each layer into a non-unitary but non-collapsing channel that preserves input distinctions while adding the nonlinear expressive power unitary circuits lack. Formally, the reset map is a completely positive trace-preserving (CPTP) map with Kraus operators $K_x = \langle x|U$ on the main register, the ancillas are exactly reset to $|0\rangle$ and reusable, and stacking such layers yields an effectively nonlinear feedforward map without deterministic collapse (Theorem 1). The descent results (Lemma 2 and Theorem 2) state that if the surrogate gradient stays within $\epsilon$ of the true loss gradient in a neighborhood, surrogate updates decrease the true loss and converge to a stationary point. The experimental claim is that this scheme reaches 99.72% test accuracy on MNIST, 90.26% on CIFAR-10, and 58.65% on CIFAR-100 with under a million parameters, beating the same circuit trained by parameter-shift gradients on all three datasets and matching or beating a classical CNN on the first two.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a practical classical surrogate can fit the circuit's local behavior well enough to supply a reliable gradient even where the true quantum gradient is tiny, and that this fit does not require exponentially many samples.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The same circuit architecture that stalls under parameter-shift gradients can be trained to higher accuracy, so depth and qubit count no longer automatically mean a vanishing update signal.
Because the surrogate is classical, training cost shifts from many quantum circuit evaluations per gradient step to classical backpropagation through the surrogate plus a fixed number of circuit samples.
Mid-circuit measurement and reset becomes a reusable template for adding nonlinearity to unitary layers without collapsing the state, since the ancillas are exactly returned to $|0\rangle$.
The convergence result implies that any quantum neural network (QNN) training task with a smooth loss can use surrogate descent, provided a local surrogate with small gradient error can be maintained.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension the paper does not test is applying surrogate-driven updates to variational quantum eigensolvers or quantum optimization problems, where the true gradient is also subject to barren-plateau decay.
A direct scaling test would measure how the number of surrogate samples must grow with circuit depth for the accuracy gap to persist; if that growth is exponential, the method has moved the plateau from gradient size to sample cost.
Because the reported experiments are noiseless simulations, injecting realistic device noise into the surrogate fitting would show whether the accuracy advantage survives outside the simulator.

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 to know: the load-bearing claim is not established. Theorem 2 assumes that at each iteration the surrogate gradient error can be made arbitrarily small, and in a barren-plateau landscape that is exactly what you cannot do with polynomial samples. The paper does not provide any sample-complexity bound connecting sample count, circuit size, and the surrogate error epsilon. So the conclusion that this scheme 'circumvents barren plateaus' is an assumption, not a result. The paper even concedes in Section II-D that a fixed surrogate 'may introduce some bias epsilon_t,' which is the unproven part dressed up as a theorem.

What the paper does well: the Kraus operator derivation in Lemma 1 is standard but correct, and the writing is clear. The combination of classical surrogate gradients with mid-circuit measurement and reset is a natural package, and the idea of fitting a surrogate to measurement outcomes rather than to the loss is sensible. For a high-school student, this is a serious effort.

Where it falls apart: the internal inconsistency in the numbers is hard to overlook. Table I lists the direct-gradient QNN on CIFAR-10 as 89.90% test accuracy, but the text says 86.31%. On CIFAR-100, the classical CNN beats the surrogate QNN (63.63% vs. 58.65%), which directly contradicts the abstract's claim of 'superior accuracy compared to ... classical baselines.' Figure 5 is captioned as MNIST but the surrounding text describes CIFAR-100. No code, surrogate architecture, or training hyperparameters are provided, so the results are not reproducible.

The theoretical gap is not a minor fix. Lemma 2 requires the surrogate to approximate the true gradient to within epsilon, and Theorem 2 requires epsilon_t to be arbitrarily small. But in a barren-plateau landscape the true gradient is exponentially small, so detecting it requires exponentially many circuit evaluations. The paper's argument that the surrogate 'can fit through sparse samples that detect slight differences in L' has no scaling analysis behind it. This is a circularity, not a missing lemma.

Who is this for? Readers interested in QML training tricks might find the experimental setup worth a quick look, but the central claim is unsupported. I would not cite it in its current form.

Recommendation: the paper deserves a serious referee because it attacks an important problem, but it should be rejected in its current state. The author should either provide a real sample-complexity bound for the surrogate or, failing that, empirical evidence that surrogate gradients remain nonzero while true gradients vanish. With that, the direction could become publishable.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a hybrid quantum-classical image classifier in which a classical neural network surrogate is trained to predict measurement outcomes of a parameterized quantum circuit with mid-circuit measurement and reset of ancillas, and the surrogate's classical gradient is used to update the circuit parameters without direct quantum gradient evaluation. The architecture also compresses input images via a CNN and projects features into circuit angles. The paper claims that this gradient-free approach circumvents barren plateaus, that the mid-circuit measurement-reset introduces useful nonlinearity, and that experiments on MNIST, CIFAR-10, and CIFAR-100 show superior accuracy relative to direct-gradient QNNs and classical baselines.

Significance. If the central claims were correct, the paper would offer a broadly applicable training framework for deep QNNs that avoids vanishing gradients while improving accuracy, which would be a meaningful contribution to variational quantum machine learning. The manuscript provides a concrete 15-qubit, 6-layer circuit design, a detailed experimental setup, and comparisons on three benchmark datasets, which is a useful empirical data point. However, the theoretical argument is not valid as stated: the key convergence theorem assumes the very property the paper claims to prove, and the empirical results partly contradict the abstract's superiority claim. The nonunitarity result is standard quantum channel theory and does not by itself establish the claimed nonlinear activation mechanism. The manuscript therefore does not currently substantiate its main claims.

major comments (4)

[II-D, Theorem 2 assumption (2); II-C, Eq. (11)-(13)] The convergence theorem assumes that at each iteration the surrogate gradient error ||∇S(t)(θ(t)) − ∇L(θ(t))|| can be made arbitrarily small, but this assumption is exactly the property the paper claims to achieve. In a barren-plateau landscape the true gradient is exponentially small, so achieving ε_t ≪ ||∇L|| requires resolving exponentially small differences in the loss, which in turn requires exponentially many circuit evaluations. The manuscript provides no sample-complexity bound linking the number of circuit executions, the circuit size, and the attainable ε_t, and Section II-D itself concedes that a fixed surrogate 'may introduce some bias ε_t.' Consequently Theorem 2 does not prove convergence or plateau avoidance; it assumes the desired outcome.
[II-C, Lemma 2 and Eq. (11)] Lemma 2 assumes S(θ(t)) = L(θ(t)) and ||∇S(θ) − ∇L(θ)|| ≤ ε, whereas the surrogate is defined in Section II-C as approximating the measurement outcome vector m(θ,x), not the loss L. No argument shows that minimizing the MSE between S and m implies the required closeness of the surrogate's loss gradient to the true loss gradient. The descent lemma therefore does not apply to the procedure as actually described.
[Table I and Section III-B, CIFAR-10 paragraph] The text reports the QNN (Direct Grad) CIFAR-10 test accuracy as 86.31%, but Table I lists 89.90% for the same entry. In addition, the abstract claims 'superior accuracy compared to direct-gradient QNNs and classical baselines,' yet on CIFAR-100 the classical CNN achieves 63.63% while the surrogate QNN achieves 58.65%. These inconsistencies and the selective reporting materially weaken the empirical support for the paper's central claim.
[Lemma 1 and Theorem 1] The claim that measuring and resetting ancillas induces 'nonlinear transformations' on the main qubits is not supported: the derived map Φ(ρ) = Σ_k V_k ρ V_k^† is a completely positive trace-preserving map and therefore linear on density operators. The paper does not establish that this channel yields the type of nonlinearity needed for enhanced expressivity; the output probabilities depend nonlinearly on the input state, but that is a generic property of quantum measurements rather than a new nonlinear activation mechanism.

minor comments (3)

[Figure 5 caption] The caption of Figure 5 says 'MNIST dataset,' but the plot and the surrounding text describe CIFAR-100; the caption should be corrected.
[Section III-B and Table I] The text states the CNN has 1.6M parameters and the NN has 2.1M parameters, while Table I reports 1.8M and 2.3M respectively; these numbers should be reconciled.
[References [12] and [13]] Reference [12] is cited for ReLU activation, but the listed paper by Householder (1941) is not a source for ReLU; the proper citation is Nair and Hinton (2010), which appears as [13], and the citation order should be corrected.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Theorem 2 assumes the surrogate gradient can be made arbitrarily accurate, which is precisely what barren-plateau analysis must establish; no sample-complexity bound connects the fit to epsilon_t.

self definitional [Section II-D, Theorem 2 assumption (2); also Section II-C, discussion after Lemma 2]
"At each iteration t, the surrogate S(t) satisfies ∥∇S(t)(θ(t))−∇L(θ(t))∥≤ ϵt, where ϵt can be made arbitrarily small by using a sufficiently accurate surrogate (and assume ϵt is indeed chosen small enough at each step)... In practice, we use a fixed surrogate model form with a moderate number of samples per iteration, which may introduce some bias ϵt. However, as long as this bias does not systematically mislead the optimization, we observe good empirical convergence."

Lemma 2's descent guarantee (Eqs. 18-19) requires ϵ ≪ ∥∇L(θ(t))∥, and Theorem 2's assumption (2) states exactly that ϵt can be made arbitrarily small. This is the result to be proven: in a barren-plateau landscape ∥∇L∥ is exponentially small in n and L, so the condition demands resolving exponentially small loss differences; no bound connects the number of circuit samples or circuit size to ϵt. The text after Lemma 2 asserts the contrary ('even if ∇L is very small ... ∇S might not be'), which violates the lemma's premise ∥∇S−∇L∥≤ϵ. Consequently Eq. (21) reduces to the standard gradient-descent inequality only by assuming the surrogate has non-vanishing, accurate gradients—i.e., by assuming away the plateau.

full rationale

The theoretical core is circular in a precise sense: Theorem 2's assumption (2) already contains the conclusion that a surrogate can be made arbitrarily accurate in gradient norm at every step; conditional on that assumption, the proof is just the standard descent lemma. The difficult question—whether polynomial-resource surrogate fitting can achieve such accuracy in a plateau landscape—is never addressed, and the text's claim that ∇S can remain large when ∇L is small directly contradicts the closeness condition used in Lemma 2 and Theorem 2. No self-citation is involved; the issue is assumption-of-the-result. The empirical section also fails to provide independent rescue: Table I shows the classical CNN (63.63%) beating the surrogate QNN (58.65%) on CIFAR-100, contradicting the abstract's 'superior accuracy compared to ... classical baselines', and the text's CIFAR-10 direct-gradient figure (86.31%) disagrees with Table I (89.90%). Those inconsistencies are correctness risks rather than circularity, but they remove external corroboration that might have compensated for the tautological theorem. Overall, the plateau-avoidance claim is loaded into the surrogate-accuracy assumption, giving a partially circular central derivation (score 7); the nonunitary-layer Lemma 1 and Corollary 1 are independent linear-algebra results and are not implicated.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard quantum-information axioms plus several unproven assumptions: arbitrary surrogate accuracy (the crux of the plateau claim), unspecified entangling conditions in Theorem 1, and a noiseless simulation setting. Free parameters include hand-chosen compression dimensions, ancilla placement, and an entirely unspecified surrogate training budget.

free parameters (4)

Surrogate sampling radius and sample count per refit = not reported
The method's gradient accuracy and cost depend on how many circuit evaluations are used around the current parameters and how wide the sampling neighborhood is; neither is specified in Section II-C or III-A.
Compression feature dimensions = 256 for MNIST, 512 for CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100
Hand-chosen sizes for the VGG-style encoder in Section III-A; they determine how much image information reaches the angle generator.
Ancilla placement and count = 4 ancillas on wires 3, 6, 9, 12
Hand-chosen design choice in Section II-A; Theorem 1 requires sufficiently large entanglement without specifying a construction.
Surrogate network architecture and training schedule = not specified
The surrogate is central to the method, but its width, depth, activation, refit frequency, and optimizer are not described, so the empirical results cannot be reproduced.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The noiseless statevector simulation accurately represents the proposed circuit's behavior.
All experiments in Section III-A run noiseless statevector simulation via TorchQuantum; hardware noise effects are deferred to future work.
domain assumption The loss L is lower bounded and L-Lipschitz smooth.
Theorem 2 requires these conditions for the standard descent lemma and states them in Section II-D.
ad hoc to paper The surrogate gradient error can be made arbitrarily small near the current parameters with practical sample counts.
Theorem 2 assumption (2); this is exactly what fails in barren plateau landscapes, and no scaling analysis is provided.
ad hoc to paper The layer unitaries sufficiently entangle ancillas with main qubits so that no single Kraus branch dominates.
Theorem 1 asserts this without a construction or quantitative condition (Section II-B).
ad hoc to paper The surrogate S can be identified with the loss L in the descent lemma.
Lemma 2 assumes S(θ(t)) equals L(θ(t)), while Section II-C defines S as approximating measurement outcomes m; the theorem therefore does not apply to the algorithm as described.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Surrogate-Driven Image Classifier: A Gradient-Free Approach to Avoid Barren Plateaus." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KYQAMO36

@misc{pith2026250505249,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Surrogate-Driven Image Classifier: A Gradient-Free Approach to Avoid Barren Plateaus},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KYQAMO36}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05249}
}

read the original abstract

Training deep quantum neural networks (QNNs) for image classification is notoriously difficult due to vanishing gradients (barren plateaus) and limited nonlinearity in purely unitary circuits. We propose a novel gradient-free surrogate-driven framework combined with mid-circuit measurement and reset of ancillary qubits to induce effective nonunitarity. Our approach uses a classical neural surrogate to predict measurement outcomes from circuit parameters to avoid direct gradients. Theoretical results prove that bypassing quantum gradients mitigates plateau issues. Experiments on MNIST, CIFAR-10, and CIFAR-100 with 15-qubit, 6-layer circuits using four resettable ancillas demonstrate superior accuracy compared to direct-gradient QNNs and classical baselines. Our method also serves as a potential for a generalized training framework applicable to various QNN architectures beyond image classification.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05249 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Simplified quantum circuit with 6 qubits, 3 layers, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** The training loss and accuracy of the CIFAR-10 dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: The training loss and accuracy of the MNIST dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Drift-resilient mid-circuit measurement and state preparation error mitigation for dynamic circuits
quant-ph 2025-06 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

Parity of repeated measurements realizes an amplified readout-error channel, enabling drift-resilient, characterization-free mitigation of mid-circuit and terminating measurement and preparation errors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes,

J. R. McClean, A. Bohrdt, G. S. Barron, and et al., “Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes,” Nature Communications, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 4812, 2018

work page 2018
[2]

Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow quantum circuits,

M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush et al., “Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow quantum circuits,” Nature Communications, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 1791, 2021

work page 2021
[3]

Quantum circuit learning,

K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii, “Quantum circuit learning,” Physical Review A , vol. 98, no. 3, p. 032309, 2018

2018
[4]

Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,

J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,” Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018

2018
[5]

Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models,

M. Benedetti, E. Lloyd, S. Sack, and M. Fiorentini, “Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 4, no. 4, p. 043001, 2019

2019
[6]

Implementing a distance-based classifier with a quantum interference circuit,

M. Schuld, M. Fingerhuth, and F. Petruccione, “Implementing a distance-based classifier with a quantum interference circuit,” EPL (Europhysics Letters), vol. 112, no. 6, p. 60003, 2015

work page 2015
[7]

Qubit-reuse compilation with mid-circuit measurement and reset,

M. DeCross, E. Chertkov, M. Kohagen, and M. Foss-Feig, “Qubit-reuse compilation with mid-circuit measurement and reset,” Physical Review X, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 041057, 2023

work page 2023
[8]

How to measure and reset a qubit in the middle of a circuit execution,

P. Nation, “How to measure and reset a qubit in the middle of a circuit execution,” 2021, iBM Quantum Blog, Feb. 11, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.ibm.com/quantum/blog/ quantum-mid-circuit-measurement

work page 2021

Show all 16 references

[9]

Supervised learning with quantum-enhanced feature spaces,

V . Havlí ˇcek, A. D. Córcoles, K. Temme et al. , “Supervised learning with quantum-enhanced feature spaces,” Nature, vol. 567, no. 7747, pp. 209–212, 2019

2019
[10]

Quantum embeddings for machine learning,

S. Lloyd, M. Schuld, A. Ijaz, J. Izaac, and N. Killoran, “Quantum embeddings for machine learning,” 2020, arXiv:2001.03622

2020 arXiv
[11]

The effect of data encoding on the expressive power of variational quantum machine learning models,

M. Schuld, R. Sweke, and J. J. Meyer, “The effect of data encoding on the expressive power of variational quantum machine learning models,” 2021, arXiv:2101.11020

2021 arXiv
[12]

A theory of steady-state activity in nerve-fiber networks: I. definitions and preliminary lemmas,

A. S. Householder, “A theory of steady-state activity in nerve-fiber networks: I. definitions and preliminary lemmas,” The Bulletin of Math- ematical Biophysics, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 63–69, June 1941

1941
[13]

Rectified linear units improve restricted boltzmann machines,

V . Nair and G. E. Hinton, “Rectified linear units improve restricted boltzmann machines,” in Proceedings of the 27th International Confer- ence on International Conference on Machine Learning , ser. ICML’10. Madison, WI, USA: Omnipress, 2010, p. 807–814
[14]

Quantumnas: Noise-adaptive search for robust quantum cir- cuits,

H. Wang, Y . Ding, J. Gu, Z. Li, Y . Lin, D. Z. Pan, F. T. Chong, and S. Han, “Quantumnas: Noise-adaptive search for robust quantum cir- cuits,” in The 28th IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA-28), 2022

2022
[15]

Decoupled weight decay regularization,

I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter, “Decoupled weight decay regularization,”
[2019]

Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.05101

[Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.05101

arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes,

J. R. McClean, A. Bohrdt, G. S. Barron, and et al., “Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes,” Nature Communications, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 4812, 2018

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow quantum circuits,

M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush et al., “Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow quantum circuits,” Nature Communications, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 1791, 2021

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Quantum circuit learning,

K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii, “Quantum circuit learning,” Physical Review A , vol. 98, no. 3, p. 032309, 2018

2018

[4] [4]

Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,

J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,” Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018

2018

[5] [5]

Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models,

M. Benedetti, E. Lloyd, S. Sack, and M. Fiorentini, “Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 4, no. 4, p. 043001, 2019

2019

[6] [6]

Implementing a distance-based classifier with a quantum interference circuit,

M. Schuld, M. Fingerhuth, and F. Petruccione, “Implementing a distance-based classifier with a quantum interference circuit,” EPL (Europhysics Letters), vol. 112, no. 6, p. 60003, 2015

work page 2015

[7] [7]

Qubit-reuse compilation with mid-circuit measurement and reset,

M. DeCross, E. Chertkov, M. Kohagen, and M. Foss-Feig, “Qubit-reuse compilation with mid-circuit measurement and reset,” Physical Review X, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 041057, 2023

work page 2023

[8] [8]

How to measure and reset a qubit in the middle of a circuit execution,

P. Nation, “How to measure and reset a qubit in the middle of a circuit execution,” 2021, iBM Quantum Blog, Feb. 11, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.ibm.com/quantum/blog/ quantum-mid-circuit-measurement

work page 2021