Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 47 references

A Hybrid Quantum-Classical Particle-in-Cell Method for Plasma Simulations

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 A hybrid quantum-classical neural network can replace the Poisson solver inside a plasma PIC code and reproduce the two-stream instability.

desk verdict A real proof-of-concept for a hybrid QNN Poisson surrogate in PIC, but the abstract overstates the comparison and the closed-loop error growth is left open. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09260 v2 pith:GILATCJA submitted 2025-05-14 quant-ph cs.ET

Pratibha Raghupati Hegde , Paolo Marcandelli , Yuanchun He , Luca Pennati , Jeremy J. Williams , Ivy Peng , Stefano Markidis This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.ET
keywords hybridquantum-classicalcomputingparticle-in-cellmethodelectrostaticPoissonsolverquantumneuralnetworkstwo-streaminstabilityphysics-informedplasmasimulation
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 a hybrid classical-quantum neural network can replace the electrostatic Poisson solver inside a one-dimensional particle-in-cell plasma code. Trained on classical PIC simulation data, the hybrid network predicts the electric potential from the charge density at each time step, while particle motion and interpolation remain classical. Tested on the two-stream instability benchmark, the hybrid solver achieves median electric-field errors of about 0.168, slightly better than a purely classical neural network with more trainable parameters, and it reproduces the characteristic phase-space vortex. The paper also argues that adding a physics-informed Poisson residual loss largely restores accuracy when training data are sparse, and it documents the computational overhead of training on a quantum simulator.

What carries the argument

The central object is the CQC network, a classical-quantum-classical architecture: a classical layer maps the 64-point charge density into a six-qubit amplitude-encoded state; a variational ansatz of six strongly entangling layers (single-qubit rotations plus CNOT gates) transforms the state; and computational-basis measurement probabilities are passed through a final classical layer to produce the potential. The network is trained with a data loss (mean absolute error against classical PIC potentials) and, in the physics-informed variant, a Poisson residual loss summing |\$partial^{2}$\Phi/\partial $x^{2}$ + \rho| over grid points, so the surrogate learns the equation \$nabla^{2}$\Phi = -\rho rather than only fitting outputs.

What would settle it

Run the hybrid PIC with an initial stream velocity outside the training range, say v0 = 0.15, and compare electric-field MRAE and final phase-space structure against the classical baseline; if the median field error rises well above 0.168 or the instability vortex is not reproduced, the claimed generalization fails. A second check is to record total energy drift over 1000 steps against a stated tolerance, since the paper's energy-conservation plot is presented without one.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that the charge-density-to-potential map in a 1D electrostatic PIC simulation can be learned by a hybrid classical-quantum neural network and then used as the field solver inside the PIC loop. On the unseen test case with stream velocity v0 = 0.07, the hybrid network predicts electric fields with a median mean-relative-absolute error near 0.168 over 1000 time steps, compared with about 0.265 for a classical neural network that has more trainable parameters. The hybrid PIC simulation reproduces the exponential growth and saturation of the electric field and yields a final velocity distribution closer to the baseline simulation by the energy-distance measure (0.012 versus 0.016). The paper further shows that a physics-informed loss, which penalizes the residual of the Poisson equation, brings sparse-data training (20 labeled potential points) up to the accuracy of dense-data training.

Load-bearing premise

The learned charge-density-to-potential map generalizes from training stream velocities (v0 = 0.03, 0.05, 0.1) to the test velocity inside that range (v0 = 0.07) over all 1000 PIC steps, with no extrapolation test outside the range and no quantified bound on how the surrogate's roughly 17 percent median field error accumulates inside the feedback loop.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 1D electrostatic PIC code can run its Poisson step through a hybrid quantum-classical neural network and still reproduce the two-stream instability's field growth, saturation, and phase-space vortex.
  • The hybrid network reaches a median electric-field MRAE of about 0.168 on the unseen v0=0.07 test case, versus about 0.265 for a classical neural network with roughly 48 percent more trainable parameters.
  • With a physics-informed loss, both classical and hybrid surrogates recover dense-data-level accuracy when only 20 sparse potential measurements are used for training.
  • Because the hybrid network uses fewer parameters, its closed-loop PIC simulation is faster than the classical-network PIC (28.5 seconds versus 55 seconds for 1000 steps), although its training on a quantum simulator is about 19 times slower.
  • Error accumulation within the PIC feedback loop and scaling to higher-dimensional Poisson problems remain open issues that the paper identifies as the next steps.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the parameter-efficiency advantage persists on larger meshes, the practical payoff would be smaller surrogate models needing less memory per PIC step; a direct test would be scaling the same architecture to a 2D or 3D Poisson problem and comparing parameter counts at matched accuracy.
  • The reported 0.168 median field error is an average over time steps; the paper does not isolate the error at the onset of the instability, so a natural next test is to weight the error by its effect on the electric-field growth rate.
  • The results demonstrate parameter efficiency, not a quantum runtime speedup: training is far slower on a simulator, and the claimed advantage would only become a practical one if the circuit runs on real hardware with low-latency classical-quantum data exchange.
  • Because the physics-informed loss worked well with sparse data, a promising extension is training the surrogate directly on experimental probe measurements instead of classical PIC data; the paper discusses this motivation but does not carry out that experiment.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes replacing the electrostatic Poisson solver in a one-dimensional electrostatic Particle-in-Cell code with a hybrid classical-quantum neural network (HNN), trained on classical PIC data and executed on a PennyLane simulator. The remaining PIC steps (charge deposition, field interpolation, particle mover) remain classical. The method is tested on the two-stream instability, with training on initial beam velocities v0 = {0.03, 0.05, 0.1} and testing on v0 = 0.07. The authors report that the HNN (CQC model) achieves a median electric-field MRAE of about 0.168, outperforming a classical neural network surrogate (CCC) with fewer trainable parameters. They also study physics-informed losses, finding large gains in a sparse-data setting, and report MPI-based parallel training and runtime comparisons.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, the paper provides a useful proof-of-concept for embedding a quantum neural network in a mature scientific computing workflow, with a plausible parameter-efficiency advantage over a classical surrogate and an honest discussion of simulator overhead. The physics-informed sparse-data results and the MPI parallelization study are also useful empirical contributions. However, the central claim that the hybrid PIC method 'reproduces' the two-stream instability is not yet supported because the closed-loop error propagation is not quantified, and several statistical claims rest on single training runs. The paper is a reasonable candidate for a journal after the load-bearing evidence is strengthened.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5.1, Fig. 6, Conclusion] The central claim that the hybrid PIC loop reproduces the two-stream instability dynamics is not supported by the current evidence. The reported median MRAE of about 0.168 is a per-step electric-field error computed against the baseline trajectory, but in the integrated PIC loop (Fig. 2) the model's own output determines the charge density at the next step, so this metric conflates one-step surrogate error with closed-loop trajectory divergence. The paper only shows the final phase-space snapshot, the energy distance 0.012, and the total-energy plot in Fig. 6 without an acceptable drift tolerance. The conclusion itself lists 'error propagation in electric field prediction within the PIC loop' as an open question. The authors should report time-resolved phase-space or field errors relative to the baseline, state a stability/accuracy tolerance for the closed loop, and evaluate whether the trajectory stays within that tolerance for the full 1000 steps.
  2. [Abstract, Sec. 5.1, Fig. 3] The abstract's claim of 'comparable accuracy to classical methods' is imprecise: the quantitative MRAE comparison in Fig. 3 is between the hybrid CQC model and the classical neural network CCC, not against the finite-difference solver that defines the baseline PIC trajectory. The left panel of Fig. 3 shows only a qualitative comparison with the traditional field, and the text says the CCC 'deviates' in some instances but does not quantify the error of either surrogate against the finite-difference reference. The authors should either restrict the accuracy claim to 'comparable to a classical neural network surrogate' or provide quantitative MRAE values for both models against the finite-difference solution.
  3. [Sec. 5.2, Fig. 7] The 'statistically significant' improvement claimed via the Wilcoxon signed-rank test is not established by the reported procedure. The boxplots in Fig. 7 appear to show distributions of per-time-step MRAE values from a single trained model, so the p-values compare correlated time-step errors rather than independent repeated-seed trials. The paper does not state how many random initializations or training seeds were used for any model. The authors should either run multiple independent training runs and report seed distributions, or clearly state that the Wilcoxon test is applied to per-time-step errors and justify its validity in that setting.
  4. [Sec. 4.2.1, Sec. 5.1] The claim that the neural networks 'generalize to unseen instances' is only tested for interpolation: the test case v0 = 0.07 lies inside the training range [0.03, 0.1]. No experiment uses v0 outside this range, so the paper does not address extrapolation, which is the more demanding regime for a surrogate Poisson solver. The authors should either add an out-of-range test (e.g., v0 = 0.12 or 0.02) or soften the 'generalization' language to 'interpolation within the training range'.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (5)] Equation (5) contains a typographical error in the PDE residual: the term should be |∂²Φ(x_i,t)/∂x² + ρ(x_i,t)|, not '∂Φ^2(x_i,t)/∂x^2'. Please correct the notation.
  2. [Eq. (6)] The normalization in Eq. (6) divides both ρ and Φ by their per-time-step maximum absolute values. The statement that the maximum of ρ can also be used to scale Φ requires justification because the scaling of the solution to the Poisson equation depends on boundary conditions; this point should be made explicit or the scaling should be described more carefully.
  3. [Sec. 4.2.1] The data split is not specified: the training set consists of 500 instances taken from the 1000-step baseline simulation, but it is not stated whether these are the first 500, last 500, or randomly sampled steps. Please clarify.
  4. [Fig. 3, Fig. 4] There are minor presentation issues in the figures: the middle panel caption in Fig. 3 has a typo ('midddle'), and the label 'Simplif.TwoDesign' in Fig. 4 is truncated. Please fix these for readability.
  5. [Sec. 4.2] The measurement discussion mentions that computational-basis probability distributions performed best, but the number of shots used in the simulation is not reported. Since the paper uses a statevector simulator, this is a minor omission, but it should be stated for reproducibility.
  6. [Sec. 5.3] The runtime comparison mixes training time and inference time: a CQC model takes about 19x longer to train than CCC, but the CQC PIC loop is faster (28.5s vs 55s) despite more parameters by some counts. A brief explanation of the inference-speed difference would help the reader interpret the computational-cost discussion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the HNN is a supervised surrogate tested on a held-out initial condition, and the central claims are empirical benchmarks rather than derivations from the fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper does not claim a first-principles derivation of plasma behavior from the quantum circuit; it trains a hybrid neural network on baseline PIC data and evaluates the trained surrogate on a held-out initial stream velocity (v0=0.07) while training on v0 values of 0.03, 0.05, and 0.1. This is a standard supervised-learning evaluation: the training targets (electric potential from the classical Poisson solve) are not defined in terms of the model's outputs, and the test condition is not used in fitting. The physics-informed loss in Eq. (5) adds an independent Poisson-equation residual to the data loss, so the improvement reported for sparse data is an empirical result rather than a tautology. Self-citations appear only in related-work and background contexts, such as Refs. [15, 16, 30], and are not load-bearing for the paper's main accuracy comparison. The paper also explicitly identifies closed-loop error propagation as an open question, which further confirms that the authors do not present the surrogate's in-loop behavior as a forced consequence of the training setup. Overall, no prediction or claimed result reduces by construction to its inputs, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard plasma physics (Poisson equation, PIC method) plus an ad-hoc learnability assumption for the surrogate map. Hyperparameters and normalization are chosen by hand, and no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Normalization scaling in Eq. (6) = per-time-step maximum of |rho'| and |Phi'|
    Inputs and outputs are divided by their per-time-step maximum before training and unscaled after inference; this data-dependent preprocessing is required for the network to produce correct magnitudes.
  • lambda (physics loss weight) = 0.3 for CCC, 0.5 for CQC
    Hand-chosen in the PINN loss (Eq. 5); no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Number of variational layers NL = 6 for main results
    Selected after comparing NL in {2,4,6,8,10} in Fig. 4; the choice affects accuracy and parameter count.
  • Learning rate = 0.001
    Fixed for all experiments with Adam; no schedule or tuning is reported.
  • Training epochs = 2000 (data-driven), 3000 (physics-informed)
    Set by the authors without early stopping or convergence criteria.
  • Quantum measurement readout = computational-basis probability distribution
    Chosen as the best among statevector, expectation value, and probabilities after comparison (Sec. 4.2).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The electrostatic potential is governed by ∇²Φ = -ρ (Eq. 1)
    This PDE is the basis for the Poisson solver and for the physics-informed loss.
  • ad hoc to paper The charge-density-to-potential map on the 64-point grid is learnable and generalizes across v0 values
    This is the core surrogate assumption; only tested on interpolation to v0 = 0.07.
  • domain assumption torch.gradient() finite differences give an adequate discrete PDE residual for the physics-informed loss
    Eq. (5) uses this to evaluate d²Φ/dx²; the authors note automatic differentiation could improve this.
  • domain assumption The baseline classical PIC data used as training labels are accurate enough to serve as ground truth
    No convergence study of the baseline linear solver is reported.
  • domain assumption Dimensionless units with electron charge-to-mass ratio = 1 capture the two-stream instability
    Section 4.2 states all quantities are dimensionless; this is a standard practice for the benchmark but limits direct physical scaling.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Hybrid Quantum-Classical Particle-in-Cell Method for Plasma Simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GILATCJA

@misc{pith2026250509260,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Hybrid Quantum-Classical Particle-in-Cell Method for Plasma Simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GILATCJA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09260}
}
read the original abstract

We present a hybrid quantum-classical electrostatic Particle-in-Cell (PIC) method, where the electrostatic field Poisson solver is implemented on a quantum computer simulator using a hybrid classical-quantum Neural Network (HNN) using data-driven and physics-informed learning approaches. The HNN is trained on classical PIC simulation results and executed via a PennyLane quantum simulator. The remaining computational steps, including particle motion and field interpolation, are performed on a classical system. To evaluate the accuracy and computational cost of this hybrid approach, we test the hybrid quantum-classical electrostatic PIC against the two-stream instability, a standard benchmark in plasma physics. Our results show that the quantum Poisson solver achieves comparable accuracy to classical methods. It also provides insights into the feasibility of using quantum computing and HNNs for plasma simulations. We also discuss the computational overhead associated with current quantum computer simulators, showing the challenges and potential advantages of hybrid quantum-classical numerical methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09260 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The CQC (classical- quantum -classical) model that is trained to solve the Poisson equation with the charge density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A quantum-classical hybrid PIC method rection, qubit scaling, and coherence times, which makes it difficult to implement theoretically successful algorithms such as HHL algorithm [13], which was proposed to solve the system of linear equations. The current quantum computers, also known as Noisy-Intermediate Scale Quan￾tum (NISQ) computers, can run variational quantum algo￾rithms that treat quantum circuits as an ans… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The left figure shows the electric fields E = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the performance of different numbers of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Phase-space of the particles at the final time of simulation using traditional methods, hybrid neural network (CQC), and classical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mean relative errors of electric field prediction for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The top plot shows the total energy of the electrons during [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Results of MPI-based data-parallelization strategy. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Energy conservation and velocity distribution for a beam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. K. Birdsall, A. B. Langdon, Plasma physics via computer simulation, CRC press, 2018

    2018

  2. [2]

    K. J. Bowers, B. J. Albright, L. Yin, W. Daughton, V. Royter- shteyn, B. Bergen, T. J. Kwan, Advances in petascale kinetic plasma simulation with vpic and roadrunner, in: Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 180, IOP Publishing, 2009, p. 012055

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Markidis, G

    S. Markidis, G. Lapenta, et al., Multi-scale simulations of plasma with ipic3d, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 80 (7) (2010) 1509–1519

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    J.-L. Vay, A. Almgren, J. Bell, L. Ge, D. Grote, M. Hogan, O. Kononenko, R. Lehe, A. Myers, C. Ng, et al., Warp-x: A new exascale computing platform for beam–plasma simulations, Nu- clear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equip- ment 909 (2018) 476–479

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Burau, R

    H. Burau, R. Widera, W. H¨ onig, G. Juckeland, A. Debus, T. Kluge, U. Schramm, T. E. Cowan, R. Sauerbrey, M. Buss- mann, Picongpu: a fully relativistic particle-in-cell code for a gpu cluster, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 38 (10) (2010) 2831–2839

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Tskhakaya, R

    D. Tskhakaya, R. Schneider, Optimization of pic codes by improved memory management, Journal of Computational Physics 225 (1) (2007) 829–839

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    I. Y. Dodin, E. A. Startsev, On applications of quantum com- puting to plasma simulations, Physics of Plasmas 28 (9) (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    P. R. Hegde, O. Kyriienko, H. Heimonen, P. Tolias, G. Net- zer, P. Barkoutsos, R. Vinuesa, I. Peng, S. Markidis, Beyond the buzz: Strategic paths for enabling useful nisq applications, in: Proceedings of the 21st ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers, 2024, pp. 310–313

    work page 2024

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Markidis, What is quantum parallelism, anyhow?, in: ISC High Performance 2024 Research Paper Proceedings (39th In- ternational Conference), Prometeus GmbH, 2024, pp

    S. Markidis, What is quantum parallelism, anyhow?, in: ISC High Performance 2024 Research Paper Proceedings (39th In- ternational Conference), Prometeus GmbH, 2024, pp. 1–12

    2024

  2. [10]

    Markidis, Programming quantum neural networks on nisq systems: An overview of technologies and methodologies, En- tropy 25 (4) (2023) 694

    S. Markidis, Programming quantum neural networks on nisq systems: An overview of technologies and methodologies, En- tropy 25 (4) (2023) 694

    2023

  3. [11]

    Du, M.-H

    Y. Du, M.-H. Hsieh, T. Liu, D. Tao, Expressive power of parametrized quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Res. 2 (2020) 033125. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.033125. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch. 2.033125

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    Lubasch, J

    M. Lubasch, J. Joo, P. Moinier, M. Kiffner, D. Jaksch, Varia- tional quantum algorithms for nonlinear problems, Phys. Rev. A 101 (2020) 010301. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.101.010301. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.101. 010301

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, S. Lloyd, Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations, Physical review letters 103 (15) (2009) 150502

    2009

  6. [14]

    Kyriienko, A

    O. Kyriienko, A. E. Paine, V. E. Elfving, Solving nonlinear dif- ferential equations with differentiable quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. A 103 (2021) 052416. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.103.052416. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.103. 052416

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    Markidis, On physics-informed neural networks for quantum computers, Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics 8 (2022) 1036711

    S. Markidis, On physics-informed neural networks for quantum computers, Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics 8 (2022) 1036711

    2022

  8. [16]

    P. R. Hegde, S. Markidis, Quantum physics informed neural networks, in: Workshop Proceedings of the 53rd International Conference on Parallel Processing, 2024, pp. 114–115

    2024

  9. [17]

    Pfeffer, F

    P. Pfeffer, F. Heyder, J. Schumacher, Hybrid quantum-classical reservoir computing of thermal convection flow, Physical Re- view Research 4 (3) (2022) 033176

    2022

  10. [18]

    G. G. Pollachini, J. P. L. C. Salazar, C. B. D. G´ oes, T. O. Maciel, E. I. Duzzioni, Hybrid classical-quantum approach to solve the heat equation using quantum annealers, Phys. Rev. A 104 (2021) 032426. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.104.032426. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/Phy...

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    Joseph, Y

    I. Joseph, Y. Shi, M. Porter, A. Castelli, V. Geyko, F. Graziani, S. Libby, J. DuBois, Quantum computing for fusion energy sci- ence applications, Physics of Plasmas 30 (1) (2023). 10

    2023

  12. [20]

    Koukoutsis, K

    E. Koukoutsis, K. Hizanidis, G. Vahala, M. Soe, L. Vahala, A. K. Ram, Quantum computing perspective for electromag- netic wave propagation in cold magnetized plasmas, Physics of Plasmas 30 (12) (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Koukoutsis, K

    E. Koukoutsis, K. Hizanidis, A. K. Ram, G. Vahala, Quantum simulation of dissipation for maxwell equations in dispersive media, Future Generation Computer Systems 159 (2024) 221– 229

    2024

  14. [22]

    S. Wang, Z. Wang, G. Cui, S. Shi, R. Shang, J. Li, W. Li, Z. Wei, Y. Gu, Quantum poisson solver without arithmetic, Intelligent Marine Technology and Systems 2 (1) (2024) 3

    2024

  15. [23]

    S. Wang, Z. Wang, W. Li, L. Fan, Z. Wei, Y. Gu, Quantum fast poisson solver: the algorithm and complete and modular circuit design, Quantum Information Processing 19 (2020) 1–25

    2020

  16. [24]

    Schuld, R

    M. Schuld, R. Sweke, J. J. Meyer, Effect of data en- coding on the expressive power of variational quantum- machine-learning models, Phys. Rev. A 103 (2021) 032430. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.103.032430. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.103. 032430

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    Du, M.-H

    Y. Du, M.-H. Hsieh, T. Liu, S. You, D. Tao, Learnability of quantum neural networks, PRX Quantum 2 (2021) 040337. doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.040337. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2. 040337

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    Sedykh, M

    A. Sedykh, M. Podapaka, A. Sagingalieva, K. Pinto, M. Pflitsch, A. Melnikov, Hybrid quantum physics-informed neural networks for simulating computational fluid dynamics in complex shapes, Machine Learning: Science and Technology 5 (2) (2024) 025045

    2024

  19. [27]

    Carrasquilla, G

    J. Carrasquilla, G. Torlai, How to use neural networks to investigate quantum many-body physics, PRX Quantum 2 (2021) 040201. doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.040201. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2. 040201

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    Jaderberg, A

    B. Jaderberg, A. A. Gentile, Y. A. Berrada, E. Shishen- ina, V. E. Elfving, Let quantum neural networks choose their own frequencies, Phys. Rev. A 109 (2024) 042421. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.109.042421. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.109. 042421

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Liu, Y.-S

    H.-L. Liu, Y.-S. Wu, L.-C. Wan, S.-J. Pan, S.-J. Qin, F. Gao, Q.-Y. Wen, Variational quantum algorithm for the poisson equation, Phys. Rev. A 104 (2021) 022418. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.104.022418. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.104. 022418

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    Aguilar, S

    X. Aguilar, S. Markidis, A deep learning-based particle-in-cell method for plasma simulations, in: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing (CLUSTER), IEEE, 2021, pp. 692–697

    2021

  23. [31]

    Trahan, M

    C. Trahan, M. Loveland, S. Dent, Quantum physics-informed neural networks, Entropy 26 (8) (2024) 649

    2024

  24. [32]

    A. Mari, T. R. Bromley, J. A. Izaac, M. Schuld, N. Killoran, Transfer learning in hybrid classical-quantum neural networks, Quantum 4 (2019) 340. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:209404942

    2019

  25. [33]

    Bergholm, J

    V. Bergholm, J. Izaac, M. Schuld, C. Gogolin, S. Ahmed, V. Ajith, M. S. Alam, G. Alonso-Linaje, B. AkashNarayanan, A. Asadi, et al., Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations, arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.04968 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Mottonen, J

    M. Mottonen, J. J. Vartiainen, V. Bergholm, M. M. Salomaa, Transformation of quantum states using uniformly controlled rotations (2004). arXiv:quant-ph/0407010. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0407010

    2004 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Zaman, T

    K. Zaman, T. Ahmed, M. A. Hanif, A. Marchisio, M. Shafique, A comparative analysis of hybrid-quantum classical neural net- works, in: H. R. Arabnia, M. Takata, L. Deligiannidis, P. Rivas, M. Ohue, N. Yasuo (Eds.), Grid, Cloud, and Cluster Comput- ing; Quantum Technologies; and...

    2025

  28. [36]

    Bowles, S

    J. Bowles, S. Ahmed, M. Schuld, Better than classical? the subtle art of benchmarking quantum machine learning models (2024). arXiv:2403.07059. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07059

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Sone, T. Volkoff, L. Cincio, P. J. Coles, Cost func- tion dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quan- tum circuits, Nature communications 12 (1) (2021) 1791

    2021

  30. [38]

    Bisio, G

    A. Bisio, G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, S. Facchini, P. Perinotti, Optimal quantum tomography, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics 15 (6) (2009) 1646–

    2009

  31. [39]

    M. L. Rizzo, G. J. Sz´ ekely, Energy distance, wiley interdisci- plinary reviews: Computational statistics 8 (1) (2016) 27–38

    2016

  32. [40]

    Y. W. Hou, M. X. Chen, M. Y. Yu, B. Wu, Linear and nonlinear behaviour of two-stream instabilities in collisionless plasmas, Journal of Plasma Physics 81 (6) (2015) 905810602. doi:10. 1017/S0022377815001087

    2015

  33. [41]

    D. Rey, M. Neuh¨ auser, Wilcoxon-signed-rank test, in: Inter- national encyclopedia of statistical science, Springer, 2011, pp. 1658–1659

    2011

  34. [42]

    V. A. Godyak, B. M. Alexandrovich, Compara- tive analyses of plasma probe diagnostics techniques, Journal of Applied Physics 118 (23) (2015) 233302. arXiv:https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article-pdf/doi/ 10.1063/1.4937446/15170724/233302\_1\_online.pdf, doi:10.1063/1.4937446. URL...

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

    J.-S. Kim, A. McCaskey, B. Heim, M. Modani, S. Stanwyck, T. Costa, CUDA Quantum: The Platform for Integrated Quantum-Classical Computing, IEEE Press, 2025, p. 1–4. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/DAC56929.2023.10247886

    2025

  36. [44]

    Elsharkawy, X.-T

    A. Elsharkawy, X.-T. M. To, P. Seitz, Y. Chen, Y. Stade, M. Geiger, Q. Huang, X. Guo, M. A. Ansari, M. Ruefenacht, L. Schulz, S. Karlsson, C. B. Mendl, D. Kranzlm¨ uller, M. Schulz, Challenges in hpcqc integration, in: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing an...

    2023

  37. [45]

    Elsharkawy, X

    A. Elsharkawy, X. Guo, M. Schulz, Integration of quantum accelerators into hpc: Toward a unified quantum platform, in: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Com- puting and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 01, 2024, pp. 774–783. doi:10.1109/QCE60285.2024.00097

    2024

  38. [46]

    Netzer, P

    G. Netzer, P. R. Hegde, I. Peng, S. Markidis, Tightly- integrated quantum–classical computing using the qhdl hard- ware description language, Future Generation Computer Sys- tems 174 (2026) 107977. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. future.2025.107977. URL https://www.sciencedirec...

    2026

  39. [1660]

    doi:10.1109/JSTQE.2009.2029243

    2009

Pith tools

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