Quantum and Hybrid Machine-Learning Models for Materials-Science Tasks

Leyang Wang; Yilun Gong; Zongrui Pei

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Quantum and Hybrid Machine-Learning Models for Materials-Science Tasks

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quantum SVM and hybrid QNN models can be tuned to roughly 90% validation accuracy on a real magnesium-alloy dataset.

desk verdict A small, honestly reported QML-on-materials demo whose headline accuracies are likely real but statistically under-supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08155 v1 pith:DK37EVKS submitted 2025-07-10 quant-ph

Leyang Wang , Yilun Gong , Zongrui Pei This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords quantummachinelearningsupportvectorneuralnetworkstackingfaultenergymagnesiumalloyshyperparameteroptimizationhybridquantum-classicalmodelQSVM

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

The paper tries to show that two quantum machine-learning algorithms, a quantum support vector machine (QSVM) and a hybrid quantum neural network (QNN), can be tuned to reach validation scores around 90% on a real materials-science dataset. The dataset is small: three elemental features (bulk modulus, atomic volume, electronegativity) for solutes in magnesium, with stacking fault energies as labels. Classification labels solutes as ductilizing (SFE below 19 mJ/m$^2$) or not; regression predicts the SFE value itself. By sweeping hyperparameters such as the SVM cost $C$, circuit depth reps, and entanglement type, the authors find optimal settings for each task and report that highly entangled circuits generally outperform linear ones. If the results hold, they indicate that QML models can be applied to practical materials problems rather than only synthetic benchmarks.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two quantum circuits. For QSVM, a ZZFeatureMap encodes the three classical features into qubit states and computes a quantum kernel $K(x,x')=|\langle\Phi(x)|\Phi(x')\rangle|^2$ that replaces the classical SVM kernel; the circuit depth (reps), entanglement pattern (circular, full, or linear), and cost parameter $C$ are tuned. For the hybrid QNN, the same feature map is followed by a RealAmplitudes ansatz, and the whole circuit is wrapped as a layer in a PyTorch neural network via TorchConnector, with the number of repeats $l$ as the main depth parameter. The paper's central observation is that these circuits, after hyperparameter search, produce validation scores around 90% on the magnesium stacking-fault dataset.

What would settle it

Re-evaluate the reported optimal configurations using leave-one-out cross-validation on the same dataset. If the QSVM classification accuracy (reported 0.92) falls below chance-plus-a-few-points, or if the hybrid QNN regression $R^2$ (0.875) collapses when a single outlier solute (Nd or Pr) is removed, the central claim of stable ~90% performance would be undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that QSVM and hybrid QNN models, with carefully selected hyperparameters, achieve validation scores of roughly 0.88 to 0.92 on both classification and regression tasks for magnesium stacking fault energies. The paper reports optimal validation scores of 0.92 for QSVM classification (with $C=1$, reps=3, and full entanglement), 0.88 for QSVM regression (reps=1 with circular or full entanglement), about 0.91 for hybrid QNN classification, and $R^2=0.875$ for hybrid QNN regression. The authors conclude that complex entanglement, either circular or fully entangled, is superior to linear entanglement, and that these accuracies indicate the models are applicable to real materials-science problems.

Load-bearing premise

The 90% validation scores are assumed to be stable even though the validation sets contain only a few samples, so a one-sample change could move a score by several points and the paper provides no error bars or separate test set.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

QSVM and hybrid QNN models can be applied to real materials-science data with only three features and a small number of solutes, reaching roughly 90% validation accuracy.
Full or circular entanglement consistently outperforms linear entanglement, suggesting that entangled feature spaces carry useful information for this problem.
The optimal hyperparameters differ between classification and regression even for the same data and algorithm, so task-specific tuning is necessary.
The hybrid QNN regression model identifies Nd and Pr as outliers with low SFEs and Os and Co as outliers with high SFEs, while still classifying the latter qualitatively correctly as non-ductilizing.
These optimized quantum models can predict targeted solutes based on elemental volume, electronegativity, and bulk modulus.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct extension is to compare QSVM and hybrid QNN against classical SVM and classical neural networks on identical train/validation splits; without that baseline, the 90% scores show feasibility but not quantum advantage.
The same workflow could be applied to larger multi-component alloy datasets where the number of features exceeds three, forcing the circuits onto more qubits and making entanglement topology a more consequential hyperparameter.
Re-running the reported configurations with leave-one-out cross-validation or repeated shuffled splits with confidence intervals would test whether the 0.92 versus 0.88 differences are statistically meaningful given the small solute set.

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

The paper is a straightforward application of two standard QML models (QSVM and a hybrid Estimator QNN) to a small magnesium alloy dataset, with code and pinned package versions. That reproducibility artifact is real and useful: anyone can rerun the sweep. The body reports the raw validation numbers (0.92, 0.88, 0.905, R2=0.875) plainly, and I don't see evidence of cherry-picked figures.

The novelty is thin. It's a hyperparameter scan of known circuits on a new dataset—no new ansatz, no theory, no claim of quantum advantage. That's acceptable for an application note, but the evaluation has to carry the weight, and here it doesn't. The validation sets are tiny: with only a few solutes in the data, an 80/20 split leaves maybe 3–5 validation samples. One sample is a 0.2–0.25 accuracy swing, so the gaps between 0.92 and 0.88 are within single-sample noise. Hyperparameters are selected on the same validation data, making the 'optimal' scores fitted values rather than independent predictions. There are no error bars and no classical baselines, so the conclusion that these accuracies 'indicate their applicability' is not supported.

The conclusion also misreports its own numbers: it gives the QNN classifier's optimum as l=1 with 0.91, but the body says l=2 with 0.905 and l=1 with 0.810; and it lists QSVR twice. That suggests the headline numbers were not carefully cross-checked.

The central empirical claim may be true—the models likely do reach those scores on this data—but the paper doesn't demonstrate anything beyond that, and the entanglement-superiority remark is especially fragile.

Who this is for: practitioners implementing QSVM or hybrid QNN on a small tabular dataset who want a concrete, working starting point. It's not a paper that moves the QML-for-materials needle.

Recommendation: send it to peer review, but with the expectation of heavy revision. A proper test set, error bars, classical baselines, and a corrected conclusion would turn this into a solid application note. As is, it's a workshop-grade empirical record.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies quantum support vector machines (QSVM) and hybrid estimator quantum neural networks (QNN) to a small materials-science dataset: three elemental features (bulk modulus, atomic volume, electronegativity) are used to predict stacking fault energies in magnesium alloys and to classify solutes as ductilizing or not. The authors scan a hyperparameter grid (C, reps/depth, entanglement pattern, epsilon) and report validation scores around 0.88-0.92 for both classification and regression. They conclude that the selected QML models are promising for real materials-science problems and that higher-entanglement circuits perform better.

Significance. If the reported numbers were statistically robust independent predictions, this would be a useful small-scale demonstration that QML workflows can be applied to a concrete materials problem with real data, and the paper's code availability with pinned package versions is a genuine strength. The manuscript also systematically varies ansatz depth and entanglement patterns, which is informative for practitioners. However, the central quantitative claims are not supported by the evaluation protocol: the validation sets are tiny, no error bars or confidence intervals are given, hyperparameters are selected on the same validation data used to report the 'optimal' scores, and no classical baselines are provided. These issues make the headline accuracies and the entanglement conclusions unreliable in their current form.

major comments (4)

[§3.1-§3.4] The paper never states the dataset size, but the solute list (Pr, Sc, Ti, Zr, Nd, Os, Co, etc.) suggests roughly 15-25 entries. With the 80/20 split described in §3.1, each validation fold contains only about 3-5 samples, so a single misclassified or correctly classified sample changes the reported accuracy by 0.20-0.25. The differences highlighted in the text (0.92 vs 0.91 in QSVC, 0.88 vs 0.81 in QSVR, 0.905 vs 0.810 in QNN classification) are therefore within the resolution of a single validation point, and the claims in §3.1 and §3.2 that 'a higher level of entanglement yields improved results' and that entanglement is 'important' are not supported. The authors should report N, the per-fold predictions, and error bars or confidence intervals, and should consider leave-one-out or repeated stratified cross-validation with a separate held-out test set.
[§3.1, §4] The quoted 'optimal performance' is obtained by maximizing accuracy over a hyperparameter grid evaluated on the validation data. Table 1 alone defines 4×3×5 = 60 combinations, and the text says results are averaged over three tests; selecting the maximum of this grid is an optimistic estimate, not an independent predictive score. No held-out test set is used, and no classical baselines (linear SVM, RBF SVM, random forest, majority-class classifier) are reported. Consequently, the conclusion in §4 that 'the promising accuracies of these four models indicate their applicability in real materials science problems' is not established. The authors should evaluate the final selected models on a true test set or use nested cross-validation, and should compare against simple classical models to show whether QML adds any predictive value.
[§3.3, §4] The Conclusion is internally inconsistent with the Results. Section 3.3 reports hybrid QNN classification accuracies of 0.810 for l=1, 0.905 for l=2, and 0.857 for l=3, and states the optimum is l=2. Section 4 instead states 'an optimal accuracy of 0.91 is achieved ... with a depth of l=1.' In addition, Section 4 repeats the QSVR regression result twice and omits the hybrid QNN regression results (R2 = 0.875, 0.865, 0.864 reported in §3.4). These inconsistencies undermine confidence that the headline numbers were carefully verified. The authors should harmonize the reported optimum with the corresponding figure and table, and list all four task/model results exactly once.
[§3.1-§3.4] The regression and classification outcomes are not compared against the trivial baseline or the data distribution. For classification, the dataset is small and the label threshold (SFE of pure Mg, 19 mJ/m²) may produce an imbalanced class distribution; a model that always predicts the majority class could already achieve high accuracy. For regression, reporting R2 = 0.875 without the sample size or a null-model comparison (e.g., predicting the mean SFE) makes it impossible to judge whether the hybrid QNN captures real structure or simply memorizes a few points. Adding these baselines is essential for the paper's central claim of applicability.

minor comments (5)

[§3.1] Table 1 lists C in [0.1, 1, 10, 100], but the text says 'We examined a range of C values corresponding to powers of 10, ranging from 0.01 to 100.' Please reconcile the stated range with the table.
[§2.1.1] Equation (4) is not the standard SVM formulation: the text says the target is 'minimizing the reciprocal inverse magnitude of the weight vector w,' which would be minimizing 1/||w||. In a maximum-margin SVM one maximizes 1/||w|| (or equivalently minimizes ||w||²). Please correct the equation and the surrounding wording.
[Code Availability] Two GitHub repositories with different cross-validation schemes are listed (five-fold versus twenty-fold). Please specify which repository and which fold count were used to generate each figure, since the text describes only five-fold cross-validation.
[Figures 3-5] Figures 3 and 4 lack explicit axis labels and legends: the caption says 'validation scores with various C, reps, and entanglement' but does not identify which panel corresponds to which hyperparameter. Figure 5 would also benefit from a labeled colorbar or explicit accuracy values on each bar.
[Throughout] There are several typos and wording issues: 'anzates' in §3.5, 'vary different' in §1, and 'unit-less' should be 'dimensionless.' A careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Headline accuracies are hyperparameter-selected validation maxima, not independent predictions; the ~90% claims reduce to the tuning objective.

fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1, Quantum SVM for classification; Conclusion]
"We perform hyperparameter tuning and limit the range for a few important hyperparameters in Table 1. ... using 80% of data for training and 20% for validation. ... The optimal performance of 0.92 is achieved for C=1, reps=3, and full entanglement, which reduces marginally to 0.91 when we use the linear entanglement ... The promising accuracies of these four models indicate their applicability in real materials science problems."

The reported 0.92 is the maximum of the validation-score grid over C, reps, and entanglement, evaluated on the same validation folds used for selection. It is a tuned value, not a held-out prediction: by construction, the selected optimum cannot be below the best grid point. The conclusion then cites this selected optimum as evidence that the models are 'promising' and 'applicable,' so the central performance claim reduces to the hyperparameter tuning objective rather than an independent test. No nested cross-validation, separate test set, or correction for selection bias is reported.
fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, Quantum SVM for regression]
"The optimal performance is found for reps=1 for the three types of entanglement, regardless of the choices for other parameters. More specifically, when we use circular or full entanglement, the optimal performance is 0.88 when C=1,10,100."

As in the classification case, the 0.88 figure is the best validation score among the hyperparameter combinations tested. It is selected by maximizing over C, epsilon, reps, and entanglement on the validation data, then reported as 'optimal performance.' The number is therefore the output of the model-selection procedure itself, not an unbiased estimate of how the model will perform on new materials data.

1 more flagged steps

fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3, Hybrid quantum neural network for classification]
"The accuracy is 0.810 for l=1, 0.905 for l=2, and 0.857 for l=3. These results indicate an optimal repeat of the core circuits l=2. ... Therefore, the best performance or accuracy is obtained for l=2."

The choice of l=2 as optimal is made by comparing validation accuracies on the same data used to evaluate it, and the quoted 0.905 is the maximum over the three depth values tested. Selecting the best depth and then reporting its validation accuracy as 'the best performance' is selection on the validation set; the number is forced to be the maximum of the tested options and cannot by itself support a claim of predictive superiority or general applicability.

full rationale

The paper is self-contained in its algorithmic machinery: the QSVM kernel and QNN ansatz are standard Qiskit components (ZZFeatureMap, RealAmplitudes) and the Mg stacking-fault dataset comes from prior work with external provenance. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or load-bearing result is smuggled in via self-citation; the authors' own prior papers are used as data sources and background, not to force the outcome. The circularity that does exist is at the evaluation level: every headline accuracy (0.92 for QSVC, 0.88 for QSVR, 0.905 for hybrid QNN classification) is the maximum of a hyperparameter grid evaluated on the same validation folds used for selection. These are fitted/tuned values, not held-out predictions, so the conclusion that 'promising accuracies ... indicate their applicability' reduces to the optimization objective. The small validation sets, with only a handful of samples per fold, amplify the problem because the selected maxima may reflect single-sample noise, but that is a statistical weakness that compounds rather than constitutes the circularity. The Conclusion also contains an internal inconsistency: it states the QNN classification optimum is at l=1 with 0.91, while Section 3.3 reports 0.905 for l=2 and 0.810 for l=1, further undermining the reliability of the reported optima, though that inconsistency is not itself a circular step.

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

The paper contributes no new theoretical machinery; it selects hyperparameters for existing QML models. The central numbers (0.92, 0.88, 0.905, 0.875) are results of a search over C, epsilon, depth, and entanglement, so the free-parameter count is high relative to the tiny dataset. The evaluation rests on unstated assumptions about feature sufficiency, simulator fidelity, and validation methodology.

free parameters (4)

C (SVM regularization) = 0.1 to 100 in powers of 10; best C=1 or 100
Grid-searched per Tables 1-2; the reported optimal scores depend on the chosen C.
reps/depth l = 1-5; best l=3 for QSVM classification, l=1 for QSVR, l=2 for QNN classification
Controls the number of repetitions of the feature map or ansatz; selected on validation data in Sections 3.1-3.4.
epsilon (SVR tolerance) = 0.01 and 0.001
Only used in QSVR; grid-searched in Table 2.
entanglement pattern = circular, full, linear
Chosen among three categorical options; full/circular reported best in Sections 3.1-3.2.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The SFE values from Ref [25] are accurate enough to serve as ground-truth labels.
Used as target values in Section 2.2; no error bars are provided for the computed SFE.
domain assumption Bulk modulus, atomic volume, and electronegativity are sufficient features to predict SFE.
These are the only features encoded into the quantum circuits (Section 2.2); if insufficient, the model is fitting noise.
ad hoc to paper Noiseless Aer simulation is a faithful proxy for the performance of the quantum models.
All results are from Qiskit Aer simulation; no real hardware is used, yet conclusions speak of quantum models' applicability.
ad hoc to paper Choosing the best hyperparameters on the validation split gives an honest estimate of model performance.
Sections 3.1-3.4 select the 'optimal' configuration from many runs on the same validation data; this assumption is not stated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum and Hybrid Machine-Learning Models for Materials-Science Tasks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DK37EVKS

@misc{pith2026250708155,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum and Hybrid Machine-Learning Models for Materials-Science Tasks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DK37EVKS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08155}
}

read the original abstract

Quantum computing has become increasingly practical in solving real-world problems due to advances in hardware and algorithms. In this paper, we aim to design and estimate quantum machine learning and hybrid quantum-classical models in a few practical materials science tasks, i.e., predicting stacking fault energies and solutes that can ductilize magnesium. To this end, we adopt two different representative quantum algorithms, i.e., quantum support vector machines (QSVM) and quantum neural networks (QNN), and adjust them to our application scenarios. We systematically test the performance with respect to the hyperparameters of selected ansatzes. We identify a few combinations of hyperparameters that yield validation scores of approximately 90\% for QSVM and hybrid QNN in both tasks. Eventually, we construct quantum models with optimized parameters for regression and classification that predict targeted solutes based on the elemental volumes, electronegativities, and bulk moduli of chemical elements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08155 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The two algorithms and their representative quantum circuits. Since the data in this study has three features, we only need three qubits. The first quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Validation scores of QSVC. Here, the validation scores with various [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Validation scores of QSVR. Here, the validation scores with various [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The hybrid QNN model for classification. The three horizontal bar graphs represent the correctness of the three repeats. Pr and Sc are wrongly predicted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The hybrid QNN model for regression. Here, the horizontal and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

Burla, Introduction to Flip Flop

N. Burla, Introduction to Flip Flop. OER Commons (2016, August 27), Accessed: 2025-04-27

work page 2016
[2]

R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, in: Feynman and computation, cRc Press, 2018, pp. 133–153

work page 2018
[3]

R. P. Feynman, Quantum mechanical computers., Found. Phys. 16 (1986) 507–532

work page 1986
[4]

Confalone, F

T. Confalone, F. Lo Sardo, Y . Lee, S. Shokri, G. Serpico, A. Coppo, L. Chirolli, V . M. Vinokur, V . Brosco, U. V ool, et al., Cuprate twistronics for quantum hardware, Ad- vanced Quantum Technologies (2025) 2500203

work page 2025
[5]

Aghaee Rad, T

H. Aghaee Rad, T. Ainsworth, R. Alexander, B. Al- tieri, M. Askarani, R. Baby, L. Banchi, B. Baragiola, J. Bourassa, R. Chadwick, et al., Scaling and networking a modular photonic quantum computer, Nature (2025) 1–8

work page 2025
[6]

M. Liu, R. Shaydulin, P. Niroula, M. DeCross, S.-H. Hung, W. Y . Kon, E. Cervero-Martín, K. Chakraborty, O. Amer, S. Aaronson, et al., Certified randomness us- ing a trapped-ion quantum processor, Nature (2025) 1–6

work page 2025
[7]

C. D. Wilen, S. Abdullah, N. Kurinsky, C. Stanford, L. Cardani, G. d’Imperio, C. Tomei, L. Faoro, L. Ioffe, C. Liu, et al., Correlated charge noise and relaxation er- rors in superconducting qubits, Nature 594 (2021) 369– 373

work page 2021
[8]

Putterman, K

H. Putterman, K. Noh, C. T. Hann, G. S. MacCabe, S. Aghaeimeibodi, R. N. Patel, M. Lee, W. M. Jones, H. Moradinejad, R. Rodriguez, et al., Hardware-efficient quantum error correction via concatenated bosonic qubits, Nature 638 (2025) 927–934

work page 2025

Show all 34 references

[9]

Acharya, D

R. Acharya, D. A. Abanin, L. Aghababaie-Beni, I. Aleiner, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, N. Astrakhantsev, et al., Quantum error correc- tion below the surface code threshold, Nature (2024)

2024
[10]

A. D. King, S. Suzuki, J. Raymond, A. Zucca, T. Lanting, F. Altomare, A. J. Berkley, S. Ejtemaee, E. Hoskinson, S. Huang, et al., Coherent quantum annealing in a pro- grammable 2,000 qubit ising chain, Nature Physics 18 (2022) 1324–1328

2022
[11]

A. D. King, J. Raymond, T. Lanting, R. Harris, A. Zucca, F. Altomare, A. J. Berkley, K. Boothby, S. Ejtemaee, C. Enderud, et al., Quantum critical dynamics in a 5,000- qubit programmable spin glass, Nature 617 (2023) 61–66

2023
[12]

A. D. King, A. Nocera, M. M. Rams, J. Dziarmaga, R. Wiersema, W. Bernoudy, J. Raymond, N. Kaushal, N. Heinsdorf, R. Harris, et al., Beyond-classical compu- tation in quantum simulation, Science (2025) eado6285

2025
[13]

Li, W.-Q

Y . Li, W.-Q. Cai, J.-G. Ren, C.-Z. Wang, M. Yang, L. Zhang, H.-Y . Wu, L. Chang, J.-C. Wu, B. Jin, et al., Microsatellite-based real-time quantum key distribution, Nature (2025) 1–8

2025
[14]

Peral-García, J

D. Peral-García, J. Cruz-Benito, F. J. García-Peñalvo, Systematic literature review: Quantum machine learning and its applications, Computer Science Review 51 (2024) 100619

2024
[15]

Z. Pei, Y . Gong, X. Liu, J. Yin, Designing complex con- centrated alloys with quantum machine learning and lan- guage modeling, Matter 7 (2024) 3433–3446

2024
[16]

Pei, Computer-aided drug discovery: From tradi- tional simulation methods to language models and quan- tum computing, Cell Reports Physical Science 5 (2024)

Z. Pei, Computer-aided drug discovery: From tradi- tional simulation methods to language models and quan- tum computing, Cell Reports Physical Science 5 (2024). 7

2024
[17]

Del Castillo, D

J. Del Castillo, D. Zhao, Z. Pei, Comparative study of the ans\" atze in quantum language models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.20744 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[18]

X. Liu, J. Zhang, Z. Pei, Machine learning for high- entropy alloys: Progress, challenges and opportunities, Progress in Materials Science 131 (2023) 101018

2023
[19]

Z. Pei, J. Yin, J. Zhang, Language models for mate- rials discovery and sustainability: Progress, challenges, and opportunities, Progress in Materials Science (2025) 101495

2025
[20]

Z. Pei, J. Yin, J. Neugebauer, A. Jain, Towards the holis- tic design of alloys with large language models, Nature Reviews Materials 9 (2024) 840–841

2024
[21]

Buonaiuto, R

G. Buonaiuto, R. Guarasci, A. Minutolo, G. De Pietro, M. Esposito, Quantum transfer learning for acceptability judgements, Quantum Machine Intelligence 6 (2024) 13

2024
[22]

García-Martín, M

D. García-Martín, M. Larocca, M. Cerezo, Quantum neu- ral networks form gaussian processes, Nature Physics (2025) 1–7

2025
[23]

Correll, S

R. Correll, S. J. Weinberg, F. Sanches, T. Ide, T. Suzuki, Quantum neural networks for a supply chain logistics ap- plication, Advanced Quantum Technologies 6 (2023) 2200183

2023
[24]

Pei, L.-F

Z. Pei, L.-F. Zhu, M. Friák, S. Sandlöbes, J. von Pezold, H. Sheng, C. P. Race, S. Zaefferer, B. Svendsen, D. Raabe, et al., Ab initio and atomistic study of generalized stack- ing fault energies in mg and mg–y alloys, New Journal of Physics 15 (2013) 043020

2013
[25]

Sandlöbes, Z

S. Sandlöbes, Z. Pei, M. Friák, L.-F. Zhu, F. Wang, S. Za- efferer, D. Raabe, J. Neugebauer, Ductility improvement of mg alloys by solid solution: Ab initio modeling, syn- thesis and mechanical properties, Acta Materialia 70 (2014) 92–104

2014
[26]

Z. Pei, M. Friák, S. Sandlöbes, R. Nazarov, B. Svendsen, D. Raabe, J. Neugebauer, Rapid theory-guided prototyp- ing of ductile mg alloys: from binary to multi-component materials, New Journal of Physics 17 (2015) 093009

2015
[27]

Z. Pei, J. Yin, Machine learning as a contributor to physics: Understanding mg alloys, Materials & Design 172 (2019) 107759

2019
[28]

Javadi-Abhari, M

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

2024
[29]

Developers, Cirq, Zenodo, 2025

C. Developers, Cirq, Zenodo, 2025

2025
[30]

Bergholm, J

V . Bergholm, J. Izaac, M. Schuld, C. Gogolin, S. Ahmed, V . Ajith, M. S. Alam, G. Alonso-Linaje, B. Akash- Narayanan, A. Asadi, J. M. Arrazola, U. Azad, S. Ban- ning, C. Blank, T. R. Bromley, B. A. Cordier, J. Ceroni, A. Delgado, O. D. Matteo, A. Dusko, T. Garg, D. Guala, A. ...

2022
[31]

Broughton, G

M. Broughton, G. Verdon, T. McCourt, A. J. Martinez, J. H. Yoo, S. V . Isakov, P. Massey, R. Halavati, M. Y . Niu, A. Zlokapa, et al., Tensorflow quantum: A software framework for quantum machine learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.02989 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[32]

Pedregosa, G

F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V . Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V . Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cour- napeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, E. Duchesnay, Scikit- learn: Machine learning in Python, Journal of Machine Learnin...

2011
[33]

Havlíˇcek, A

V . Havlíˇcek, A. D. Córcoles, K. Temme, A. W. Harrow, A. Kandala, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, Supervised learning with quantum-enhanced feature spaces, Nature 567 (2019) 209–212

2019
[34]

T. Gray, N. Mann, M. Whitby, Periodic table,http:// periodictable.com, 2017. Accessed: 2023-12-18. 8

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Burla, Introduction to Flip Flop

N. Burla, Introduction to Flip Flop. OER Commons (2016, August 27), Accessed: 2025-04-27

work page 2016

[2] [2]

R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, in: Feynman and computation, cRc Press, 2018, pp. 133–153

work page 2018

[3] [3]

R. P. Feynman, Quantum mechanical computers., Found. Phys. 16 (1986) 507–532

work page 1986

[4] [4]

Confalone, F

T. Confalone, F. Lo Sardo, Y . Lee, S. Shokri, G. Serpico, A. Coppo, L. Chirolli, V . M. Vinokur, V . Brosco, U. V ool, et al., Cuprate twistronics for quantum hardware, Ad- vanced Quantum Technologies (2025) 2500203

work page 2025

[5] [5]

Aghaee Rad, T

H. Aghaee Rad, T. Ainsworth, R. Alexander, B. Al- tieri, M. Askarani, R. Baby, L. Banchi, B. Baragiola, J. Bourassa, R. Chadwick, et al., Scaling and networking a modular photonic quantum computer, Nature (2025) 1–8

work page 2025

[6] [6]

M. Liu, R. Shaydulin, P. Niroula, M. DeCross, S.-H. Hung, W. Y . Kon, E. Cervero-Martín, K. Chakraborty, O. Amer, S. Aaronson, et al., Certified randomness us- ing a trapped-ion quantum processor, Nature (2025) 1–6

work page 2025

[7] [7]

C. D. Wilen, S. Abdullah, N. Kurinsky, C. Stanford, L. Cardani, G. d’Imperio, C. Tomei, L. Faoro, L. Ioffe, C. Liu, et al., Correlated charge noise and relaxation er- rors in superconducting qubits, Nature 594 (2021) 369– 373

work page 2021

[8] [8]

Putterman, K

H. Putterman, K. Noh, C. T. Hann, G. S. MacCabe, S. Aghaeimeibodi, R. N. Patel, M. Lee, W. M. Jones, H. Moradinejad, R. Rodriguez, et al., Hardware-efficient quantum error correction via concatenated bosonic qubits, Nature 638 (2025) 927–934

work page 2025