Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Assessing Quantum Advantage for Gaussian Process Regression

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The condition number of a kernel matrix grows at least linearly with its size, so quantum Gaussian process regression cannot offer exponential speedup.

desk verdict Solid negative result on quantum GPR speedup; main theorem a.s. linear scaling is correct, but Corollary 1.1's deterministic claim is false as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22502 v2 pith:Q6DSSRH3 submitted 2025-05-28 quant-ph cs.LG

Dominic Lowe , M.S. Kim , Roberto Bondesan This is my paper
classification quant-phcs.LG MSC 68Q1265F3560B20 PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords GaussianprocessregressionquantumadvantageconditionnumberkernelmatrixmachinelearningspectralconvergenceHHLalgorithmdequantisation
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 asks whether the quantum algorithms proposed for Gaussian process regression can deliver exponential speedups. It answers no for a broad class of kernels: the condition number of the regularised kernel matrix grows at least linearly with the number of data points, and all three published quantum GPR algorithms scale polynomially in that condition number. The paper proves an asymptotic formula for the condition number in terms of the largest eigenvalue of the integral operator and the regularisation parameter, and verifies it numerically for RBF and dot product kernels. If correct, the best possible quantum speedup over classical Cholesky is from $O(m^3)$ to $O(m^2 \log m)$, not exponential.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the almost-sure spectral convergence of the normalised Gram-matrix eigenvalues $\frac{1}{m}\tilde\lambda_{n,m}$ to the integral operator eigenvalues $\lambda_n$ (Lemma 1), combined with an interlacing argument showing that, under the nested-data assumption (keeping old data points when adding new ones), the smallest eigenvalue $\tilde\lambda_{m,m}$ decreases to a bounded limit $C(\omega)$ (Lemma 2). These lemmas together yield the explicit asymptotic formula for $\kappa_{m,\sigma}$ and the deterministic bounds of Corollary 1.1.

What would settle it

Find a square-integrable, bounded-diagonal, positive semi-definite kernel with $\lambda_1 \neq 0$ and a nested i.i.d. data sequence for which $\kappa_{m,\sigma}/m$ does not converge to a positive constant; Theorem 1 predicts linear growth for every such case.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, for a broad class of kernels and data distributions, the condition number $\kappa_{m,\sigma}$ of the regularised kernel matrix $K + \sigma^2 I$ grows at least linearly with the number of data points $m$, almost surely. Theorem 1 gives the sharper asymptotic form $\kappa_{m,\sigma} \sim \frac{\lambda_1}{C(\omega)+\sigma^2} m$, where $\lambda_1$ is the largest eigenvalue of the integral operator defined by the kernel and $C(\omega)$ is a bounded random variable coming from the limit of the smallest Gram-matrix eigenvalue. Because the three published quantum algorithms for Gaussian process regression all have runtimes polynomial in this condition number, the paper concludes that, even granting perfect quantum data loading, they achieve at best a polynomial speedup over classical Cholesky inversion — from $O(m^3)$ to $O(m^2 \log m)$ — rather than an exponential one.

Load-bearing premise

The proof rests on (i) a spectral convergence theorem for random kernel matrices and (ii) the nested-data assumption that each Gram matrix contains the previous one as a principal submatrix; if either fails for a chosen kernel or sampling scheme, the linear bound is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For bounded kernels with i.i.d. data and $\sigma>0$, all three quantum GPR algorithms run in polynomial time in $m$; the best is $O(m^2\log m)$ against $O(m^3)$ for classical Cholesky.
  • The regularised condition number admits deterministic bounds: constants $C_1,C_2$ exist such that $C_1 m \le \kappa_{m,\sigma} \le C_2 m$ for all large $m$ and every sample.
  • Sparsity and Frobenius norm of kernel matrices also grow at least linearly, so quantum algorithms and quantum-inspired solvers that pay for sparsity or Frobenius condition number gain no exponential advantage.
  • Unregularised strictly positive definite kernels still give $\kappa_m \in \Omega(m)$ almost surely.
  • These conclusions hold independently of data-loading assumptions and also apply to dequantised algorithms, because they concern the matrix itself.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same linear scaling argument likely extends beyond GPR to any kernel-matrix-based quantum algorithm whose cost is polynomial in the condition number, since the proof never uses the regression labels.
  • The paper's numerics hint that the linear bound may survive without the nested-data assumption and for unbounded kernels such as the dot product; proving either would broaden the result's reach.
  • A remaining route to exponential speedup would be a quantum linear-system solver whose runtime is independent of condition number and sparsity, for example one based on a Pauli decomposition with small $\ell^1$ norm, as the paper notes.
  • For practitioners, the result is a guide to classical algorithm choice: when inverting kernel matrices, any solver whose cost grows with the condition number will degrade linearly with dataset size.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the condition number of kernel (Gram) matrices arising in Gaussian Process Regression. For square-integrable, symmetric, positive semidefinite kernels with bounded diagonal and i.i.d. samples satisfying a nested-data assumption, Theorem 1 gives an almost-sure asymptotic formula for the condition number of the regularized matrix K + σ²I: κ_{m,σ} ~ (λ1/(C(ω)+σ²)) m, where λ1 is the largest eigenvalue of the integral operator and C(ω) is a bounded random variable. Theorem 2 gives an almost-sure lower bound κ_m = Ω(m) for the unregularized case. Theorems 3 and 4 show that sparsity and Frobenius norm also scale linearly in m. The authors use these results to argue that three proposed quantum GPR algorithms (Zhao, Chen, Farooq) have at best a polynomial speedup from O(m³) to O(m² log m) over classical Cholesky, hence no exponential quantum advantage. Numerical experiments with RBF and dot-product kernels support the linear scaling.

Significance. If the results hold, they constitute a substantial and rigorous negative result for quantum advantage in GPR: under common kernel and data assumptions, all currently proposed quantum GPR algorithms inherit a polynomial (quadratic or worse) dependence on the number of data points, so their best possible speedup over classical Cholesky is only polynomial. The proof strategy is transparent and relies on an external spectral convergence theorem due to Koltchinskii and Giné, with the paper providing a concrete derivation of the asymptotic constant using known eigen-decompositions for the RBF kernel. The numerical verification, including a plot without the nested-data assumption, is a strength. The provided code and the identification of open problems (e.g., unbounded kernels, non-i.i.d. data) make the paper a useful contribution. The main caveat is that the central theorem is almost-sure, and the paper's deterministic Corollary 1.1 overclaims uniformity across all sample sequences.

major comments (2)
  1. [Corollary 1.1 and Section 2.1 (Theorem 1 statement)] Corollary 1.1 is false as stated. Theorem 1 is an almost-sure limit statement; it does not imply deterministic finite-m bounds valid for every ω ∈ Ω. The proof of the corollary bounds the limiting coefficient C(ω), but the asymptotic formula says nothing about the rate of convergence or about null-probability sample sequences. A concrete counterexample is the RBF kernel on R with unit length scale and the deterministic sequence x_i = 100i: for large m the Gram matrix is approximately the identity (diagonal 1, off-diagonal about 0), so κ_{m,σ} = O(1), violating the claimed lower bound C1 m. This sequence has probability zero under any continuous data distribution, so the almost-sure results remain valid, but the corollary's 'for all ω' formulation is wrong. The authors should either remove the corollary or restate it almost surely with ω-dependent constants, and correspondingly qualify the abstract's 'rigorously proving' claim.
  2. [Statement of Theorem 1 (Section 2.1)] The statement '∀σ > 0, ω ∈ Ω, κ_{m,σ}(ω) ∼ ... where the above holds with probability 1' is internally contradictory: the universal quantifier over ω conflicts with the almost-sure qualification. The theorem should be stated as 'for almost every ω ∈ Ω the limit holds', as the proof correctly does using the probability-one event A. This is a presentational issue but it is directly tied to the overclaim in Corollary 1.1 and should be fixed together with it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Theorem 2 proof (Section 4.2)] In the proof of Theorem 2, the event A is defined with λ1(ω), but λ1 is deterministic; this notation should be corrected to λ1 to avoid confusion.
  2. [Supplementary Material S1] The counterexample kernel is zero almost everywhere on χ² and hence has λ1 = 0, which violates the assumptions of Theorem 1. The text acknowledges this, but the presentation as a 'counterexample to C = 0' should clarify that it does not fall under the theorem's hypotheses and hence does not disprove the possibility that C = 0 for all admissible kernels.
  3. [Section 2.2 Numerical Results] The claim that 'multiple realisations show identical behaviour' is not supported by displayed data; adding error bars or multiple overlaid curves would strengthen the numerical evidence.
  4. [Equation for κ_{m,σ} (Section 2.1)] The symbol σ² is used both for the regularization and for the noise variance in GPR; a brief note clarifying that these coincide in the standard GPR formulation would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main theorem is derived from an external spectral convergence result and Cauchy interlacing, the numerical prediction uses a stated fixed constant rather than a fitted parameter, and no load-bearing self-citation occurs.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. Theorem 1 is proved in Section 4.2 by combining Lemma 1, imported from Koltchinskii and Giné [44], with Lemma 2, which follows from Cauchy interlacing under the Data Assumption; neither lemma assumes the linear scaling of the condition number. The asymptotic formula kappa_{m,sigma} ~ lambda_1/(C(omega)+sigma^2) m is then an algebraic consequence of the normalised largest eigenvalue converging to lambda_1 and the smallest eigenvalue converging to C(omega); it is not fitted to the numerics. The numerical section computes the predicted curve from the explicit lambda_1 for the RBF/Gaussian measure (Supplementary S2) after setting C = 0 via a stated heuristic; this is a prediction with a fixed constant, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and it does not feed back into the proof. There are no load-bearing self-citations. A separate correctness issue, not circularity, is Corollary 1.1: from the almost-sure limit and the bound 0 <= C(omega) <= B one cannot conclude uniform finite-m inequalities for every omega without a rate or uniformity argument. That overclaim is peripheral, because the no-exponential-speedup conclusion only needs the almost-sure linear scaling established in Theorem 1.

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

The central claim rests on standard spectral theory and one external convergence theorem, plus domain assumptions about data nesting and boundedness of the kernel. There are no fitted free parameters and no invented entities. The heaviest input is the Koltchinskii-Giné theorem, which is a published result.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Mercer's theorem: a symmetric positive semi-definite kernel has a spectral decomposition into eigenfunctions and eigenvalues of the integral operator.
    Used in Section 2.1 to write k(x,y) = Σ λ_i φ_i(x) φ_i(y).
  • standard math Koltchinskii and Giné's spectral convergence result: normalized eigenvalues of random kernel matrices converge to the integral operator eigenvalues for Hilbert-Schmidt kernels with bounded diagonal.
    Lemma 1 relies directly on this external theorem, which is cited as reference [44].
  • domain assumption Data Assumption: Gram matrices are formed from nested samples, so that each matrix is a principal submatrix of the next.
    Explicitly stated in Section 2.1; used in Lemma 2 to guarantee monotonicity of the smallest eigenvalue via Cauchy interlacing.
  • domain assumption Training inputs are i.i.d. random variables distributed according to µ.
    Standard GPR setup, stated in Section 2.1 and used throughout the theorems.
  • domain assumption The kernel has bounded diagonal and λ1 ≠ 0.
    Bounded diagonal is used in Lemma 1 and Theorem 3; λ1 ≠ 0 excludes degenerate kernels that are zero almost everywhere.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Assessing Quantum Advantage for Gaussian Process Regression." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q6DSSRH3

@misc{pith2026250522502,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Assessing Quantum Advantage for Gaussian Process Regression},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q6DSSRH3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22502}
}
read the original abstract

Gaussian Process Regression is a well-known machine learning technique for which several quantum algorithms have been proposed. We show here that in a wide range of scenarios these algorithms show no exponential speedup. We achieve this by rigorously proving that the condition number of a kernel matrix scales at least linearly with the matrix size under general assumptions on the data and kernel. We additionally prove that the sparsity and Frobenius norm of a kernel matrix scale linearly under similar assumptions. The implications for the quantum algorithms runtime are independent of the complexity of loading classical data on a quantum computer and also apply to dequantised algorithms. We supplement our theoretical analysis with numerical verification for popular kernels in machine learning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22502 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Condition numbers of Gram matrices formed from the RBF kernel with mul [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Condition number growth of Gram matrices formed using the dot product kernel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Condition number growth of Gram matrices formed using the RBF kernel with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Spectral Estimation with Free Decompression

    stat.ML 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Free decompression evolves a small submatrix spectrum into an estimate of a large matrix spectrum using a PDE derived from free probability, the Nica-Speicher free compression theorem.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Quantum machine learning

    Jacob Biamonte, Peter Wittek, Nicola Pancotti, Patrick Rebentrost, Nathan Wiebe, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum machine learning. Nature, 549(7671):195–202, September 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Cerezo, Guillaume Verdon, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J

    M. Cerezo, Guillaume Verdon, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J. Coles. Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning. Nature Computational Science, 2(9):567–576, September 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Quantum machine learning: a classical perspective

    Carlo Ciliberto, Mark Herbster, Alessandro Davide Ialongo, Massimiliano Pontil, An- drea Rocchetto, Simone Severini, and Leonard Wossnig. Quantum machine learning: a classical perspective. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 474(2209):20170551, January 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Quantum algorithms for su- pervised and unsupervised machine learning, November 2013

    Seth Lloyd, Masoud Mohseni, and Patrick Rebentrost. Quantum algorithms for su- pervised and unsupervised machine learning, November 2013. arXiv:1307.0411

    arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    Quantum principal compo- nent analysis

    Seth Lloyd, Masoud Mohseni, and Patrick Rebentrost. Quantum principal compo- nent analysis. Nature Physics , 10(9):631–633, September 2014. Publisher: Nature Publishing Group. 18

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Quantum Recommendation Systems

    Iordanis Kerenidis and Anupam Prakash. Quantum Recommendation Systems. LIPIcs, Volume 67, ITCS 2017 , 67:49:1–49:21, 2017. Artwork Size: 21 pages, 517106 bytes ISBN: 9783959770293 Medium: application/pdf Publisher: Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum f¨ ur Informatik

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd

    Aram W. Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum algorithm for solving linear systems of equations, September 2009. arXiv:0811.3171

    arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    Samuel Jaques and Arthur G. Rattew. Qram: A survey and critique, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    A quantum-inspired classical algorithm for recommendation systems, May

    Ewin Tang. A quantum-inspired classical algorithm for recommendation systems, May

  2. [10]

    Quantum principal component analysis only achieves an exponential speedup because of its state preparation assumptions, August 2021

    Ewin Tang. Quantum principal component analysis only achieves an exponential speedup because of its state preparation assumptions, August 2021. arXiv:1811.00414

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Carl Edward Rasmussen and Christopher K. I. Williams. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. The MIT Press, November 2005

    2005

  4. [12]

    Fitzsimons, and Joseph F

    Zhikuan Zhao, Jack K. Fitzsimons, and Joseph F. Fitzsimons. Quantum-assisted Gaussian process regression. Physical Review A , 99(5):052331, May 2019. Publisher: American Physical Society

    2019

  5. [13]

    Quantum algorithm for Gaussian process regression

    Meng-Han Chen, Chao-Hua Yu, Jian-Liang Gao, Kai Yu, Song Lin, Gong-De Guo, and Jing Li. Quantum algorithm for Gaussian process regression. Physical Review A, 106(1):012406, July 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Galvis-Florez, and Simo S¨ arkk¨ a

    Ahmad Farooq, Cristian A. Galvis-Florez, and Simo S¨ arkk¨ a. Quantum-assisted Hilbert-space Gaussian process regression. Physical Review A , 109(5):052410, May 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    An introduction to the conjugate gradient method with- out the agonizing pain, 1994

    Jonathan Richard Shewchuk. An introduction to the conjugate gradient method with- out the agonizing pain, 1994

    1994

  8. [16]

    Faster quantum-inspired algorithms for solv- ing linear systems, April 2023

    Changpeng Shao and Ashley Montanaro. Faster quantum-inspired algorithms for solv- ing linear systems, April 2023. arXiv:2103.10309 version: 2

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Pedro C. S. Costa, Dong An, Yuval R. Sanders, Yuan Su, Ryan Babbush, and Do- minic W. Berry. Optimal scaling quantum linear systems solver via discrete adiabatic theorem, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Eigenvalues and Condition Numbers of Random Matrices

    Alan Edelman. Eigenvalues and Condition Numbers of Random Matrices. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications , 9(4):543–560, October 1988. Publisher: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

    1988

  11. [19]

    The condition number of a randomly perturbed matrix, March 2007

    Terence Tao and Van Vu. The condition number of a randomly perturbed matrix, March 2007. arXiv:math/0703307 version: 1

    2007 arXiv

  12. [20]

    D. Posa. Conditioning of the stationary kriging matrices for some well-known covari- ance models. Mathematical Geology, 21(7):755–765, 1989. 19

    1989

  13. [21]

    Zimmermann

    R. Zimmermann. On the condition number anomaly of Gaussian correlation matrices. Linear Algebra and its Applications , 466:512–526, February 2015

    2015

  14. [22]

    Chaitin-Chatelin

    F. Chaitin-Chatelin. Spectral approximation of linear operators. Computer science and applied mathematics. Academic Press, 1983. tex.lccn: lc82006744

    1983

  15. [23]

    Dunford and J.T

    N. Dunford and J.T. Schwartz. Linear operators, part 2: Spectral theory, self adjoint operators in hilbert space. Wiley classics library. Wiley, 1988. tex.lccn: 88116254

    1988

  16. [24]

    R. Penrose. A generalized inverse for matrices. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cam- bridge Philosophical Society , 51(3):406–413, 1955

    1955

  17. [25]

    Kriege, Fredrik D

    Nils M. Kriege, Fredrik D. Johansson, and Christopher Morris. A Survey on Graph Kernels. Applied Network Science , 5(1):6, December 2020. arXiv:1903.11835 [cs]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    String kernels construction and fusion: a survey with bioinformatics application

    Ren Qi, Fei Guo, and Quan Zou. String kernels construction and fusion: a survey with bioinformatics application. Frontiers of Computer Science, 16(6):166904, January 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Huaiyu Zhu, Christopher K. I. Williams, Richard Rohwer, Michal Morciniec, and Michal Hammel. Gaussian Regression and Optimal Finite Dimensional Linear Models, 1997

    1997

  20. [28]

    Samuel Jaques and Arthur G. Rattew. QRAM: A Survey and Critique, May 2023. arXiv:2305.10310

    2023

  21. [29]

    Hilbert space methods for reduced-rank Gaussian process regression

    Arno Solin and Simo S¨ arkk¨ a. Hilbert space methods for reduced-rank Gaussian process regression. Statistics and Computing , 30(2):419–446, March 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    When Gaussian Process Meets Big Data: A Review of Scalable GPs, April 2019

    Haitao Liu, Yew-Soon Ong, Xiaobo Shen, and Jianfei Cai. When Gaussian Process Meets Big Data: A Review of Scalable GPs, April 2019. arXiv:1807.01065 [stat]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Qubit-Efficient Randomized Quantum Algorithms for Linear Algebra

    Samson Wang, Sam McArdle, and Mario Berta. Qubit-Efficient Randomized Quantum Algorithms for Linear Algebra. PRX Quantum , 5(2):020324, April 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    B. D. Clader, B. C. Jacobs, and C. R. Sprouse. Preconditioned Quantum Linear System Algorithm. Physical Review Letters , 110(25):250504, June 2013. Publisher: American Physical Society

    2013

  25. [33]

    Quantum circulant preconditioner for a linear system of equations

    Changpeng Shao and Hua Xiang. Quantum circulant preconditioner for a linear system of equations. Physical Review A , 98(6):062321, December 2018. Publisher: American Physical Society

    2018

  26. [34]

    Cunningham, and Jacob R

    Jonathan Wenger, Geoff Pleiss, Philipp Hennig, John P. Cunningham, and Jacob R. Gardner. Preconditioning for Scalable Gaussian Process Hyperparameter Optimiza- tion, June 2022. arXiv:2107.00243 [cs]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Quantum Support Vector Ma- chine for Big Data Classification

    Patrick Rebentrost, Masoud Mohseni, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum Support Vector Ma- chine for Big Data Classification. Physical Review Letters, 113(13):130503, September

  28. [36]

    C´ orcoles, Kristan Temme, Aram W

    Vojtˇ ech Havl ´ ıˇ cek, Antonio D. C´ orcoles, Kristan Temme, Aram W. Harrow, Abhinav Kandala, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta. Supervised learning with quantum- enhanced feature spaces. Nature, 567(7747):209–212, March 2019. Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2019

  29. [37]

    Quantum Machine Learning in Feature Hilbert Spaces

    Maria Schuld and Nathan Killoran. Quantum Machine Learning in Feature Hilbert Spaces. Physical Review Letters, 122(4):040504, February 2019. Publisher: American Physical Society

    2019

  30. [38]

    A rigorous and robust quantum speed-up in supervised machine learning

    Yunchao Liu, Srinivasan Arunachalam, and Kristan Temme. A rigorous and robust quantum speed-up in supervised machine learning. Nature Physics, 17(9):1013–1017, September 2021. arXiv:2010.02174 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Michael Broughton, Masoud Mohseni, Ryan Babbush, Sergio Boixo, Hartmut Neven, and Jarrod R. McClean. Power of data in quantum ma- chine learning. Nature Communications, 12(1):2631, May 2021. Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2021

  32. [40]

    Neural Tangent Kernel: Con- vergence and Generalization in Neural Networks, February 2020

    Arthur Jacot, Franck Gabriel, and Cl´ ement Hongler. Neural Tangent Kernel: Con- vergence and Generalization in Neural Networks, February 2020. arXiv:1806.07572 [cs]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Schoenholz, Yasaman Bahri, Roman Novak, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, and Jeffrey Pennington

    Jaehoon Lee, Lechao Xiao, Samuel S. Schoenholz, Yasaman Bahri, Roman Novak, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, and Jeffrey Pennington. Wide Neural Networks of Any Depth Evolve as Linear Models Under Gradient Descent, December 2019. arXiv:1902.06720 [stat]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Du, Xiyu Zhai, Barnabas Poczos, and Aarti Singh

    Simon S. Du, Xiyu Zhai, Barnabas Poczos, and Aarti Singh. Gradient De- scent Provably Optimizes Over-parameterized Neural Networks, February 2019. arXiv:1810.02054 [cs]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Christopher T. H. Baker. Numerical Integration in the Treatment of Integral Equa- tions. In G. H¨ ammerlin, editor,Numerische Integration: Tagung im Mathematischen Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach vom 1. bis 7. Oktober 1978 , pages 44–53. Birkh¨ auser, Basel, 1979

    1978

  36. [44]

    Random matrix approximation of spectra of integral operators

    Vladimir Koltchinskii and Evarist Gin´ e. Random matrix approximation of spectra of integral operators. Bernoulli, 6(1):113–167, February 2000. Publisher: Bernoulli Society for Mathematical Statistics and Probability

    2000

  37. [45]

    A very short proof of cauchy’s interlace theorem for eigenvalues of hermitian matrices, 2005

    Steve Fisk. A very short proof of cauchy’s interlace theorem for eigenvalues of hermitian matrices, 2005. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the UK EPSRC (EP/W032643/1, EP/Y004752/1, and EP/Z53318X/1) , KIST Open Research programme and the National Research Foun- datio...

    2005

  38. [2014]

    Publisher: American Physical Society. 20

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.