Clique detection using symmetry-restricted quantum circuits

Claudia Linnhoff-Popien; Dmytro Bondarenko; Linus Menzel; Maximilian Balthasar Mansky; Tobias Rohe

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Clique detection using symmetry-restricted quantum circuits

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 A permutation-invariant quantum circuit learns to label cliques in random graphs, while unsymmetric circuits do not converge.

desk verdict The reported benchmark is not interpretable as written because the accuracy metric is never defined while labels are drawn randomly among multiple valid cliques; the symmetry story is plausible but the empirical claim needs a rework. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03339 v2 pith:AX72DGJQ submitted 2025-06-03 quant-ph

Maximilian Balthasar Mansky , Tobias Rohe , Dmytro Bondarenko , Linus Menzel , Claudia Linnhoff-Popien This is my paper

classification quant-ph MSC 81P6805C69

keywords quantummachinelearningpermutation-invariantcircuitsequivariantcliqueproblemgraphlabelingsymmetry-restrictedvariationalErdős–Rényigraphs

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

Quantum machine learning usually matches a circuit's built-in symmetry to a symmetry of the data, but this paper studies a labeling problem that looks asymmetric: given a random graph, label all nodes of a randomly chosen clique. The paper reports that a permutation-invariant circuit learns this task quickly, reaching high validation accuracy within a few epochs, while a weaker cyclic-invariant circuit converges slowly and a standard strongly entangling ansatz stays near random. The explanation offered is that the problem is nevertheless highly symmetric, because permuting the graph together with the label leaves the input–output relation unchanged, $F \to \ell \iff \pi_k F \to \pi_k \ell$. If this explanation is right, symmetry-aware quantum circuits can be applied to equivariant graph-labeling problems, not just to invariant graph-property questions, and the symmetry to exploit is the joint symmetry of features and labels.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the permutation-invariant parameterized quantum circuit, constructed by restricting the generator algebra of a variational layer to the invariant subspace of the permutation group and realizing the resulting generators through SWAP-interconnected two-qubit gates; layers are repeated to match parameter counts. It is paired with a graph embedding that maps each node to a qubit and each edge to a CZ gate. The identity that carries the argument is the joint equivariance condition $F \to \ell \iff \pi_k F \to \pi_k \ell$, which says that a graph and its clique label may be permuted together without changing the learning target; this converts a superficially asymmetric labeling task into one whose symmetry matches the circuit.

What would settle it

Retrain the three circuits on graphs that contain exactly one clique of the target size, with that clique as the fixed label, and compare validation accuracy; the paper's symmetry explanation predicts the permutation-invariant circuit still wins, whereas the stochastic-label artifact predicts the gap shrinks or disappears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that the clique-labeling task is equivariant under simultaneous permutations of the input graph and the output clique label, and that a circuit hard-wired to be permutation-invariant exploits this equivariance effectively. In the experiments, the permutation-invariant ansatz converges to high validation accuracy within a few epochs for both six and eight qubits; the cyclic-invariant ansatz converges more slowly, reaching roughly 65% accuracy after 200 epochs; and the unconstrained strongly entangling ansatz shows no convergence, staying near chance. The paper reads this ordering as evidence that matching the circuit symmetry to the joint permutation symmetry of the problem, rather than raw circuit capacity, is what makes the task learnable.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison rests on the assumption that the undisclosed accuracy metric faithfully rewards correct clique labeling, even though graphs can contain several valid cliques and the target label is chosen randomly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Symmetry-aware quantum circuits can be applied to equivariant graph-labeling tasks, not only to invariant graph-property decisions such as connectivity or bipartiteness.
A practical design rule follows: identify the largest symmetry under which both features and labels transform together, then restrict the ansatz to that symmetry.
The slow partial success of the cyclic-invariant circuit indicates that weaker symmetries give partial learnability, so symmetry content, not parameter count, is the primary control on convergence.
The joint equivariance condition can be checked before training, giving a criterion for when a permutation-invariant ansatz is worth trying.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: the same simultaneous-permutation argument should transfer to other subset-labeling problems, such as independent set or vertex cover, as long as a random optimal subset is drawn as the label; this predicts a similar accuracy ordering and can be tested without new machinery.
Editorial extension: because the accuracy metric is not defined, the ranking could depend on how alternative valid cliques are scored; a benchmark using graphs with a unique clique of target size would separate the symmetry benefit from any benefit of label stochasticity.
Editorial extension: the gradual degradation from full permutation symmetry to cyclic symmetry suggests a spectrum of optimization difficulty indexed by subgroup size, which could be probed with intermediate symmetry groups between $C_n$ and $S_n$.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing to know: the central comparison in Fig. 1 is not something you can trust as reported. The paper says graphs with multiple 4-cliques get a randomly selected clique as the label, and never defines accuracy. If the metric demands exact match to that random label, no deterministic circuit can get near 100% on such graphs; expected accuracy would be bounded by the max label probability. The near-perfect curves then imply either the dataset was filtered to unique-clique graphs (not stated) or the metric credits any valid clique (not stated). Either way, the empirical claim is uninterpretable. The stress-test note is correct and it lands.

What's genuinely new: applying the authors' permutation-invariant circuits to a clique-labeling task, extending their prior graph-problem work. That's fine as a small extension. The circuits themselves are from their earlier papers and the related work is cited properly. The observation that the joint feature-label permutation symmetry is what matters (Eq. 1) is a fair way to frame the task, though it's standard equivariance dressed up as 'invariance'—the paper's terminology is sloppy.

Soft spots beyond the metric. The baseline comparison is unfair: the standard ansatz is only trained for the 50 epochs shown, while the cyclic ansatz additionally gets 200 epochs in a separate experiment. So 'standard ansatz shows no convergence' is not a settled result. No code, data, or hyperparameters are given, so nothing is reproducible. And the 'explanation' of the performance gap is essentially the design principle: the circuit was built to be permutation-equivariant and the task was chosen to be permutation-equivariant. That isn't circular in a harmful way—it's an expected result—but it's not independent evidence.

What holds up: the claim that permutation-invariant circuits converge faster on this equivariant task is plausible, and the cyclic-vs-permutation comparison, if the metric were fixed, would be a reasonable sanity check. The paper is short, clearly written, and doesn't overclaim beyond the benchmark.

Who this is for: QML practitioners interested in symmetry-informed ansatze. It's a conference-short-paper-level result, not a transformative one.

Recommendation: send it to peer review, but with a referee who will demand the metric be defined, the dataset handling of multiple cliques be clarified, and the baselines trained to equal budget. The flaws are fixable; the core idea isn't wrong, it's just under-supported. I'd want to see a revised version before believing the figure.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports numerical experiments comparing three quantum circuit ansatze - a permutation-invariant circuit, a cyclic-invariant circuit, and a standard strongly-entangling ansatz - on a supervised clique-labeling task. Graphs are Erdős-Rényi random graphs encoded via a graph embedding, and the target label is a measurement pattern marking the vertices of a 4-clique (6 qubits) or 5-clique (8 qubits). The paper claims that the permutation-invariant ansatz reaches near-perfect validation accuracy within a few epochs, that the cyclic-invariant ansatz converges more slowly, and that the standard ansatz performs at chance level. The authors attribute this to an intrinsic symmetry of the problem: the feature and label transform together under simultaneous permutation of the vertices. The central empirical claim rests on Figure 1, with no formal derivation and only a qualitative symmetry argument in Section VI.

Significance. If the reported results are correct and the comparison is fair, the paper would provide a useful demonstration that symmetry-restricted quantum circuits can exploit the equivariance of a graph-labeling task to achieve faster and more accurate training than less symmetric ansatze. The hypothesis in Eq. (1) is clearly stated, and the use of quantum natural gradient with error bars over ten seeds is a sensible experimental design. However, the paper as written does not define the accuracy metric, does not establish that the baselines are comparably trained, and provides no code or data. These omissions leave the central performance claim unverified, so the significance cannot currently be assessed beyond the qualitative observation that permutation-invariant circuits converge quickly on this particular dataset.

major comments (4)

[Section IV and Section V, Fig. 1] The accuracy metric is never defined, and the label-generation rule makes the reported near-100% accuracy impossible to interpret. Section IV states that for graphs containing larger cliques, "the contained clique is chosen randomly." If a graph contains multiple distinct cliques of the target size and the label is the randomly chosen one, no deterministic circuit can match that random label on expectation over draws, so exact-label accuracy would be bounded well below the values shown in Fig. 1. If the metric instead accepts any valid clique, then the task is not "labeling the randomly selected clique" and the relationship between the figure and the claim in the abstract must be restated. Please define the accuracy metric precisely, and either filter the dataset to graphs with a unique target clique or report both exact-label and any-valid-clique accuracy.
[Section III, parameter matching] The comparison between ansatze is not shown to be fair. The text says the target is 120 parameters, giving "40 repetitions in the case of the permutation-invariant quantum circuits, 30 in the case of the cyclic-invariant quantum circuits and three for the strongly-entangling layer in the standard ansatz." A single PennyLane strongly-entangling layer on 6 qubits typically contains 18 parameters (three rotation angles per qubit), and on 8 qubits it contains 24, so three layers would give 54 or 72 parameters, not 120. If the standard ansatz is trained with far fewer parameters, its chance-level performance in Fig. 1 may be an artifact of underparameterization. Please report the actual parameter count for each ansatz and rerun the standard ansatz with a comparable number of parameters.
[Section IV and Section V, training details] The manuscript does not state the loss function, the measurement/readout scheme, the optimizer hyperparameters, or the exact training/validation split beyond "100 graphs per epoch" and a balanced dataset of 3000 graphs. Without these details, the convergence curves in Fig. 1 cannot be reproduced or independently assessed. The absence of code and data exacerbates this problem. Please provide the omitted training specifications or release the code and dataset so that the central empirical claim can be checked.
[Section VI, Eq. (1)] The explanation in Section VI restates the design principle rather than independently explaining the observed convergence. Eq. (1), F -> l iff pi_k F -> pi_k l, asserts the equivariance of the task under simultaneous permutation of feature and label; the permutation-invariant circuit is constructed to respect exactly this symmetry. The experiment therefore does not distinguish the hypothesis that symmetry alignment is causally responsible for the performance from other differences between the ansatze, such as parameter count, trainability, or landscape structure. Please add a control that breaks the symmetry (for example, randomly permuting the label order relative to the feature) or compare against a classical equivariant baseline to make the symmetry explanation testable.

minor comments (5)

[Table I] The circuit diagrams in Table I are not legible in the provided manuscript, so the parameter-sharing structure of the permutation-invariant and cyclic-invariant layers cannot be verified; please provide a higher-resolution figure or a formal gate-by-gate specification.
[Section IV] The phrase "labels indicate the clique position" is inconsistent with the later statement that graphs without a clique are labeled "-1 expected measurement on all qubits"; clarify whether the -1 label means all qubits are in state |-1> or whether it denotes a separate class.
[Section VI, Eq. (1)] The notation in Eq. (1) is undefined: the arrow '->' and the action of the permutation pi_k on both the graph feature F and the label l should be specified explicitly.
[Section IV] The sentence "Other clique sizes show similar results" is unsupported because no results for other clique sizes are shown; either include them or remove the claim.
[Section V] The validation set is said to contain 2900 graphs per epoch, but the number of validation samples used to compute each accuracy point and the way the 95% confidence intervals are computed over the 10 runs should be stated.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

The empirical comparison is self-contained, but the paper's explanatory claim reduces to a restatement of the task's designed symmetry and relies on a self-cited convergence criterion.

self definitional [Section VI Discussion, Eq. (1)]
"However, this overlooks the fact the presented problem is subject to a permutation symmetry, since both the feature, the incoming graph, as well as the label, denoting the clique, are permutation-invariant. In the case of a binary decision problem on a graph [16], the feature individually is permutation-invariant. Here, the permutation transformation has to apply to both the feature and the label, F →ℓ ⇔ πkF →πkℓ (1)"

The claimed explanation of the success of the permutation-invariant circuit is that the labeling task is equivariant under simultaneous permutation of graph and clique label. But this equivariance is not an independent property discovered in the experiment; it is a direct consequence of the task design, since a clique is a set of nodes and relabeling nodes permutes the clique accordingly. Moreover, the ansatz was chosen because it respects this very symmetry (using the authors' construction from [14],[16]). Thus the explanation reduces to the design input: the task was constructed to be permutation-equivariant and the circuit was built to encode that symmetry.

full rationale

The central empirical result—permutation-invariant ansatz outperforming cyclic and standard ansatze on a clique-labeling task—is obtained from a standalone simulation with a defined train/validation split, and does not reduce to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation. The accuracy metric, however, is never defined, and with randomly chosen labels among multiple cliques the reported near-100% accuracy cannot correspond to exact label prediction; this is a correctness/interpretability concern rather than a circularity. The paper's explanation in Section VI uses Eq. (1) to argue the problem is permutation-symmetric; this is a post hoc restatement of the dataset construction (a clique is a set, so permuting nodes permutes the label), and the ansatz was selected precisely because it respects that symmetry via the authors' prior constructions [14],[16]. This self-definitional explanation does not invalidate the measured performance, but it means the 'intrinsic symmetry' explanation is not an independent prediction. The convergence-criterion citation [16] is a self-citation but is used as background, not as the evidence for the observed accuracy. Overall, the empirical core is not circular; only the interpretive framing is, yielding a low moderate score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not derive a mathematical result; the central claim is empirical. The assumptions listed are the external constructions (circuit family, embedding, optimizer) and the dataset design, all taken from prior work or chosen by the authors, that the performance comparison depends on.

free parameters (3)

Trainable circuit parameters = trained, final values not reported
All ansatze have approximately 120 trainable parameters optimized by quantum natural gradient; the paper does not report final values or learning rate.
Target parameter count = 120
The authors equalize ansatze by targeting 120 parameters, leading to 40, 30, and 3 layers respectively; this choice affects expressivity and optimization.
Dataset construction choices = not specified
3000 Erdos-Renyi graphs, balanced across labels, with random clique selection among multiple cliques, and unspecified edge probability; these choices define the learning target.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The permutation-invariant quantum circuit construction from ref [14] correctly implements permutation invariance and is trainable.
The paper uses these circuits without deriving or verifying their properties; if the construction is flawed, the comparison is meaningless.
domain assumption The graph embedding from ref [16] maps graph structure to CZ gates such that the circuit output can be interpreted as node labels.
The mapping from graphs to circuits is taken from prior work; the paper does not analyze its expressiveness or potential information loss.
domain assumption Quantum natural gradient optimization converges reliably for these circuits within 50 epochs.
The paper relies on QNG without reporting learning rate or convergence diagnostics; the standard ansatz's failure to converge could be an optimization issue, not an architectural one.
domain assumption The random graph distribution and random clique selection produce a learnable target function.
If the label is randomly chosen among multiple cliques, the target is stochastic and may not be learnable by any deterministic circuit; this is not addressed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Clique detection using symmetry-restricted quantum circuits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AX72DGJQ

@misc{pith2026250603339,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Clique detection using symmetry-restricted quantum circuits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AX72DGJQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03339}
}

read the original abstract

We show the application of permutation-invariant quantum circuits to the clique problem. The experiment asks to label a clique through identification of the nodes in a larger subgraph. The permutation-invariant quantum circuit outperforms a cyclic-invariant alternative as well as a standard quantum machine learning ansatz. We explain the behavior through the intrinsic symmetry of the problem, in the sense that the problem is symmetric under permutation of both the feature and the label.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[1]

PennyLane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations,

V . Bergholm, J. Izaac, M. Schuld, C. Gogolin, S. Ahmed, V . Ajith, M. S. Alam, G. Alonso-Linaje, B. AkashNarayanan, A. Asadi, J. M. Arrazola, U. Azad, S. Banning, C. Blank, T. R. Bromley, B. A. Cordier, J. Ceroni, A. Delgado, O. Di Matteo, A. Dusko, T. Garg, D. Guala, A. Hayes, R. Hill, A. Ijaz, T. Isacsson, D. Ittah, S. Jahangiri, P. Jain, E. Jiang, A. ...

arXiv 2022
[2]

Quantum Machine Learning,

J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, “Quantum Machine Learning,” Nature, vol. 549, no. 7671, pp. 195–202, Sep. 2017, arXiv: 1611.09347. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1611.09347

arXiv 2017
[3]

Geometric Deep Learning: Grids, Groups, Graphs, Geodesics, and Gauges,

M. M. Bronstein, J. Bruna, T. Cohen, and P. Veli ˇckovi´c, “Geometric Deep Learning: Grids, Groups, Graphs, Geodesics, and Gauges,” May 2021, arXiv:2104.13478 [cs, stat]. [Online]. Available: http: //arxiv.org/abs/2104.13478

arXiv 2021
[4]

From Graphs to Qubits: A Critical Review of Quantum Graph Neural Networks,

A. Ceschini, F. Mauro, F. D. Falco, A. Sebastianelli, A. Verdone, A. Rosato, B. L. Saux, M. Panella, P. Gamba, and S. L. Ullo, “From Graphs to Qubits: A Critical Review of Quantum Graph Neural Networks,” Aug. 2024, arXiv:2408.06524 [quant-ph]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.06524

arXiv 2024
[5]

Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation,

D. Deutsch and R. Jozsa, “Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences , vol. 439, no. 1907, pp. 553–558, Dec. 1992, publisher: Royal Society. [Online]. Available: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.1992.0167

arXiv 1907
[6]

Convolutional neural network: a review of models, methodologies and applications to object detection,

A. Dhillon and G. K. Verma, “Convolutional neural network: a review of models, methodologies and applications to object detection,” Progress in Artificial Intelligence , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 85–112, Jun. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13748-019-00203-0

doi:10.1007/s13748-019-00203-0 2020
[7]

On random graphs. I

P. Erd ˝os and A. R ´enyi, “On random graphs. I.” Publicationes Mathematicae Debrecen , vol. 6, no. 3-4, pp. 290–297, 1959. [Online]. Available: https://publi.math.unideb.hu/load doi.php?pdoi= 10 5486 PMD 1959 6 3 4 12

1959
[8]

A new model for learning in graph domains,

M. Gori, G. Monfardini, and F. Scarselli, “A new model for learning in graph domains,” in Proceedings. 2005 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2005. , vol. 2, Jul. 2005, pp. 729–734 vol. 2, iSSN: 2161-4407. [Online]. Available: https: //ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1555942

work page arXiv 2005

Show all 30 references

[9]

J. L. Gross and J. Yellen, Eds., Handbook of graph theory , ser. Discrete mathematics and its applications. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, 2004

2004
[10]

A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,

L. K. Grover, “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,” in Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing , ser. STOC ’96. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Jul. 1996, pp. 212–219. [Online]. Available: https...

1996
[11]

Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Representations,

B. C. Hall, “Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Representations,” in Quantum Theory for Mathematicians , ser. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, B. C. Hall, Ed. New York, NY: Springer, 2013, pp. 333–

2013
[12]

Group-Invariant Quantum Machine Learning,

M. Larocca, F. Sauvage, F. M. Sbahi, G. Verdon, P. J. Coles, and M. Cerezo, “Group-Invariant Quantum Machine Learning,” PRX Quantum, vol. 3, no. 3, p. 030341, Sep. 2022, publisher: American Physical Society. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PRXQuantum.3.030341

2022
[13]

Backpropagation applied to handwritten zip code recognition,

Y . LeCun, B. Boser, J. S. Denker, D. Henderson, R. E. Howard, W. Hubbard, and L. D. Jackel, “Backpropagation applied to handwritten zip code recognition,” Neural computation , vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 541–551, 1989, publisher: MIT Press. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee...

1989
[14]

Permutation-invariant quantum circuits,

M. B. Mansky, S. L. Castillo, V . R. Puigvert, and C. Linnhoff-Popien, “Permutation-invariant quantum circuits,” Dec. 2023, arXiv:2312.14909 [quant-ph]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.14909

2023 arXiv
[15]

Scaling of symmetry-restricted quantum circuits,

M. B. Mansky, M. A. Martinez, A. Bravo de la Serna, S. L. Castillo, D. Nikolaidou, G. Sathish, Z. Wang, S. W ¨olckert, and C. Linnhoff- Popien, “Scaling of symmetry-restricted quantum circuits,” Jun. 2024, arXiv:2406.09962. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.09962

2024 arXiv
[16]

Solving graph problems using permutation-invariant quantum machine learning,

M. B. Mansky, T. Rohe, G. Stenzel, A. B. d. l. Serna, S. L. Castillo, G. Sathish, D. Nikolaidou, D. Bondarenko, L. Menzel, and C. Linnhoff- Popien, “Solving graph problems using permutation-invariant quantum machine learning,” May 2025, arXiv:2505.12764 [quant-ph]. [Online]. A...

2025 arXiv
[17]

Exploiting Symmetry in Variational Quantum Machine Learning,

J. J. Meyer, M. Mularski, E. Gil-Fuster, A. A. Mele, F. Arzani, A. Wilms, and J. Eisert, “Exploiting Symmetry in Variational Quantum Machine Learning,” PRX Quantum , vol. 4, no. 1, p. 010328, Mar. 2023, publisher: American Physical Society. [Online]. Available: https://link.ap...

2023 doi
[18]

Theory for Equivariant Quantum Neural Networks,

Q. T. Nguyen, L. Schatzki, P. Braccia, M. Ragone, P. J. Coles, F. Sauvage, M. Larocca, and M. Cerezo, “Theory for Equivariant Quantum Neural Networks,” PRX Quantum , vol. 5, no. 2, p. 020328, May 2024, publisher: American Physical Society. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps...

2024 doi
[19]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information, 10th ed. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010

2010
[20]

A Unified Theory of Barren Plateaus for Deep Parametrized Quantum Circuits,

M. Ragone, B. N. Bakalov, F. Sauvage, A. F. Kemper, C. O. Marrero, M. Larocca, and M. Cerezo, “A Unified Theory of Barren Plateaus for Deep Parametrized Quantum Circuits,” Taipei, Taiwan, 2024, arXiv:2309.09342 [quant-ph]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.09342

2024 arXiv
[21]

The Graph Neural Network Model,

F. Scarselli, M. Gori, A. C. Tsoi, M. Hagenbuchner, and G. Monfardini, “The Graph Neural Network Model,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 61–80, Jan. 2009, conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.i...

2009
[22]

Theoretical guarantees for permutation-equivariant quantum neural networks,

L. Schatzki, M. Larocca, Q. T. Nguyen, F. Sauvage, and M. Cerezo, “Theoretical guarantees for permutation-equivariant quantum neural networks,” npj Quantum Information , vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–14, Jan. 2024, publisher: Nature Publishing Group. [Online]. Available: https://www.n...

2024
[23]

An introduction to quantum machine learning,

M. Schuld, I. Sinayskiy, and F. Petruccione, “An introduction to quantum machine learning,” Contemporary Physics , vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 172–185, Apr. 2015, arXiv: 1409.3097. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.3097

2015 arXiv
[24]

Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring,

P. Shor, “Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring,” in Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Nov. 1994, pp. 124–134

1994
[25]

Quan- tum Natural Gradient,

J. Stokes, J. Izaac, N. Killoran, and G. Carleo, “Quan- tum Natural Gradient,” Quantum, vol. 4, p. 269, May 2020, publisher: Verein zur F ¨orderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften. [Online]. Available: https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2020-05-25-269/

2020
[26]

Attention is all you need,

A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

2017
[27]

Quantum Graph Neural Networks,

G. Verdon, T. McCourt, E. Luzhnica, V . Singh, S. Leichenauer, and J. Hidary, “Quantum Graph Neural Networks,” Sep. 2019, arXiv:1909.12264 [quant-ph]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/ 1909.12264

2019 arXiv
[28]

Hyperbolic Graph Neural Networks: A Review of Methods and Applications,

M. Yang, M. Zhou, Z. Li, J. Liu, L. Pan, H. Xiong, and I. King, “Hyperbolic Graph Neural Networks: A Review of Methods and Applications,” Feb. 2022, arXiv:2202.13852 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2202.13852

2022 arXiv
[29]

Graph neural networks: A review of methods and applications,

J. Zhou, G. Cui, S. Hu, Z. Zhang, C. Yang, Z. Liu, L. Wang, C. Li, and M. Sun, “Graph neural networks: A review of methods and applications,” AI Open, vol. 1, pp. 57–81, Jan. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666651021000012

2020
[366]

Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7116-5 16

[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7116-5 16

doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

PennyLane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations,

V . Bergholm, J. Izaac, M. Schuld, C. Gogolin, S. Ahmed, V . Ajith, M. S. Alam, G. Alonso-Linaje, B. AkashNarayanan, A. Asadi, J. M. Arrazola, U. Azad, S. Banning, C. Blank, T. R. Bromley, B. A. Cordier, J. Ceroni, A. Delgado, O. Di Matteo, A. Dusko, T. Garg, D. Guala, A. Hayes, R. Hill, A. Ijaz, T. Isacsson, D. Ittah, S. Jahangiri, P. Jain, E. Jiang, A. ...

arXiv 2022

[2] [2]

Quantum Machine Learning,

J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, “Quantum Machine Learning,” Nature, vol. 549, no. 7671, pp. 195–202, Sep. 2017, arXiv: 1611.09347. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1611.09347

arXiv 2017

[3] [3]

Geometric Deep Learning: Grids, Groups, Graphs, Geodesics, and Gauges,

M. M. Bronstein, J. Bruna, T. Cohen, and P. Veli ˇckovi´c, “Geometric Deep Learning: Grids, Groups, Graphs, Geodesics, and Gauges,” May 2021, arXiv:2104.13478 [cs, stat]. [Online]. Available: http: //arxiv.org/abs/2104.13478

arXiv 2021

[4] [4]

From Graphs to Qubits: A Critical Review of Quantum Graph Neural Networks,

A. Ceschini, F. Mauro, F. D. Falco, A. Sebastianelli, A. Verdone, A. Rosato, B. L. Saux, M. Panella, P. Gamba, and S. L. Ullo, “From Graphs to Qubits: A Critical Review of Quantum Graph Neural Networks,” Aug. 2024, arXiv:2408.06524 [quant-ph]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.06524

arXiv 2024

[5] [5]

Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation,

D. Deutsch and R. Jozsa, “Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences , vol. 439, no. 1907, pp. 553–558, Dec. 1992, publisher: Royal Society. [Online]. Available: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.1992.0167

arXiv 1907

[6] [6]

Convolutional neural network: a review of models, methodologies and applications to object detection,

A. Dhillon and G. K. Verma, “Convolutional neural network: a review of models, methodologies and applications to object detection,” Progress in Artificial Intelligence , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 85–112, Jun. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13748-019-00203-0

doi:10.1007/s13748-019-00203-0 2020

[7] [7]

On random graphs. I

P. Erd ˝os and A. R ´enyi, “On random graphs. I.” Publicationes Mathematicae Debrecen , vol. 6, no. 3-4, pp. 290–297, 1959. [Online]. Available: https://publi.math.unideb.hu/load doi.php?pdoi= 10 5486 PMD 1959 6 3 4 12

1959

[8] [8]

A new model for learning in graph domains,

M. Gori, G. Monfardini, and F. Scarselli, “A new model for learning in graph domains,” in Proceedings. 2005 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2005. , vol. 2, Jul. 2005, pp. 729–734 vol. 2, iSSN: 2161-4407. [Online]. Available: https: //ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1555942

work page arXiv 2005