pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.01110 · v1 · pith:QKOOYBGNnew · submitted 2026-05-31 · ⚛️ physics.geo-ph · cs.LG· quant-ph

Accelerating physics-informed neural networks for full waveform inversion using a hybrid quantum-classical finite-basis architecture

Hoang Anh Nguyen , Divakar Vashisth , Ali Tura This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 16:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.geo-ph cs.LGquant-ph
keywords full waveform inversionphysics-informed neural networkshybrid quantum-classicalparameterized quantum circuitsgeophysical inversionacoustic wave equationFBPINN
0
0 comments X

The pith

Hybrid quantum-classical network reaches lower FWI velocity error in 8x fewer iterations

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

This paper introduces a hybrid quantum-classical finite-basis physics-informed neural network for acoustic full waveform inversion. The decomposed wavefield network and global velocity network are realized as classical-to-quantum pipelines that terminate in parameterized quantum circuits simulated differentiably with JAX statevectors. On a geophysical anomaly benchmark the hybrid reaches lower L1 velocity error than the main classical FBPINN baseline after roughly eight times fewer training iterations while using about one-third fewer parameters. It also beats all fifteen classical hyperparameter variants tested on the same task. A checkerboard benchmark confirms the pipeline recovers structured spatial velocity variations beyond localized anomalies.

Core claim

We present a hybrid quantum-classical FBPINN for acoustic FWI in which the decomposed wavefield network and the global velocity network are implemented as classical-to-quantum pipelines terminating in parameterized quantum circuits realized as differentiable JAX statevector simulators. This setup enables end-to-end automatic differentiation through the classical PINN, the quantum circuit, and the physics-informed loss. On a geophysical anomaly benchmark the quantum hybrid reaches a lower L1 velocity error than the primary classical FBPINN baseline in approximately 8x fewer training iterations despite using approximately 33% fewer trainable parameters and outperforms all 15 classical hyperpar

What carries the argument

Hybrid quantum-classical FBPINN with decomposed wavefield and global velocity networks realized as classical-to-quantum pipelines ending in parameterized quantum circuits (PQCs) that support end-to-end differentiation through the physics-informed loss.

If this is right

  • The same pipeline applies directly to other wave-based inverse problems such as medical ultrasound tomography and non-destructive evaluation.
  • End-to-end differentiability through the quantum circuits allows the quantum components to participate in any physics-informed loss without separate optimization stages.
  • The architecture recovers both localized anomalies and extended checkerboard-style spatial variations in the velocity field.
  • Fewer trainable parameters combined with faster convergence reduces the computational cost of mesh-free inversion relative to classical FBPINNs.
  • The method is compatible with any differentiable quantum simulator that can be embedded in an automatic-differentiation framework.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If quantum hardware or faster simulators become available the iteration advantage could translate into practical wall-clock speedups on larger problems.
  • The same hybrid pattern might accelerate convergence in other PINN applications that currently suffer from slow training on complex fields.
  • Direct wall-clock timing comparisons on identical hardware would be needed to confirm whether the iteration reduction yields real runtime gains once simulator overhead is included.
  • Extending the benchmarks to three-dimensional models would test whether the observed advantages persist at larger scale.

Load-bearing premise

The parameterized quantum circuits remain stable and expressive enough under end-to-end differentiation through the physics-informed loss without introducing simulation artifacts that degrade inversion accuracy.

What would settle it

Running the geophysical anomaly benchmark and finding that the quantum hybrid does not achieve lower L1 velocity error than the classical baseline in approximately 8x fewer iterations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.01110 by Ali Tura, Divakar Vashisth, Hoang Anh Nguyen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic of the finite-basis classical-quantum hybrid architecture, combining classical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Multilayer PQC Q. Each input feature zi is angle-encoded via an Ry(βi zi) rotation (blue encoding layer), where βi is a trainable scaling parameter. Variational layers of single-qubit rotations Rx, Ry, Rz followed by a linear CNOT ladder are repeated L times (orange block). Each qubit is measured in the Pauli-Z basis (green meters), and the outputs are averaged to yield a scalar in [−1, 1]. 2.2 Anomaly ben… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Anomaly benchmark inversion and convergence. (a) True velocity model used for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Checkerboard benchmark inversion. (a) True velocity model: a 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Full waveform inversion (FWI) reconstructs heterogeneous material properties from receiver data but remains computationally demanding. Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) and their domain-decomposed variants (FBPINNs) offer a mesh-free alternative but face convergence challenges when representing complex velocity fields. We present a hybrid quantum-classical FBPINN for acoustic FWI, bringing together quantum computing and classical machine learning, in which the decomposed wavefield network and the global velocity network are implemented as classical-to-quantum pipelines terminating in parameterized quantum circuits (PQCs). The PQCs are realized as differentiable JAX statevector simulators, enabling end-to-end automatic differentiation through the classical PINN, the quantum circuit, and the physics-informed loss. On a geophysical anomaly benchmark, the quantum hybrid reaches a lower L1 velocity error than the primary classical FBPINN baseline in approximately 8x fewer training iterations, despite using approximately 33% fewer trainable parameters, and it outperforms all 15 classical hyperparameter variants tested. A second benchmark (checkerboard) demonstrates the generality of the inversion pipeline, confirming that the quantum hybrid architecture can recover structured spatial variations beyond the localized anomaly benchmark. Our framework is broadly applicable to wave-based inverse problems beyond geophysics, including medical ultrasound tomography and non-destructive evaluation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hybrid quantum-classical finite-basis physics-informed neural network (FBPINN) architecture for acoustic full waveform inversion (FWI). The decomposed wavefield network and global velocity network are realized as classical-to-quantum pipelines ending in parameterized quantum circuits (PQCs) simulated via differentiable JAX statevector simulators, enabling end-to-end differentiation through the physics-informed loss. On a geophysical anomaly benchmark the hybrid model is reported to achieve lower L1 velocity error than a classical FBPINN baseline in approximately 8x fewer iterations while using ~33% fewer parameters and outperforming 15 classical hyperparameter variants; a checkerboard benchmark is used to demonstrate generality for recovering structured velocity variations.

Significance. If the reported performance gains and stability under end-to-end differentiation hold after proper controls, the work would constitute a concrete demonstration of quantum-enhanced PINNs for wave-based inverse problems. The use of differentiable quantum circuit simulation within a domain-decomposed PINN framework is a technical strength that could be relevant to other mesh-free inversion tasks in geophysics, ultrasound tomography, and non-destructive testing. The absence of free parameters or ad-hoc axioms in the provided description is noted positively.

minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states concrete performance numbers (8x iteration reduction, 33% parameter savings, outperformance of 15 variants) without accompanying error bars, training curves, or explicit data-exclusion rules; these details are required to evaluate robustness.
  2. [Abstract] The weakest assumption flagged (stability and expressivity of PQCs under end-to-end differentiation through the physics loss) is central to the claims but is not addressed in the provided abstract text; the methods section must supply circuit ansatze, qubit counts, and simulation artifact checks.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their summary of the manuscript and for highlighting the technical strengths of the differentiable quantum circuit simulation within the domain-decomposed PINN framework. We also appreciate the positive note regarding the absence of free parameters or ad-hoc axioms. No specific major comments were raised in the report, so we provide no point-by-point responses below. We remain available to address any additional questions or requests for clarification from the referee or editor.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper introduces a hybrid quantum-classical FBPINN architecture for acoustic FWI, realized via differentiable JAX statevector simulators for PQCs, and reports empirical performance gains (lower L1 error in ~8x fewer iterations, fewer parameters) on anomaly and checkerboard benchmarks versus classical FBPINN variants. No load-bearing derivations, equations, or self-citations are present that reduce claimed results to fitted inputs by construction, self-definition, or ansatz smuggling. The performance numbers are presented as direct outcomes of end-to-end training runs on the physics-informed loss, with no internal reduction to the inputs themselves. This is the expected non-finding for an architecture paper whose central claims rest on numerical experiments rather than analytic derivations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review is based solely on the abstract; therefore the ledger is minimal and reflects only explicitly stated or strongly implied elements.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The acoustic wave equation governs propagation in the FWI setting
    Implicit in the physics-informed loss described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5768 in / 1288 out tokens · 33561 ms · 2026-06-28T16:11:08.503067+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation

    Albert Tarantola. Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation. Geophysics, 49(8):1259–1266, 08 1984. ISSN 0016-8033. doi: 10.1190/1.1441754. URL https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1441754. 13

    work page doi:10.1190/1.1441754 1984

  2. [2]

    Andreas Fichtner, Brian L. N. Kennett, Heiner Igel, and Hans-Peter Bunge. Full seismic waveform tomography for upper-mantle structure in the australasian region using adjoint methods.Geophysical Journal International, 179(3):1703–1725, 12 2009. ISSN 0956-540X. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04368.x. URL https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X. 2009.04368.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-246x.2009.04368.x 2009

  3. [3]

    Misfit functions for full waveform inversion based on instantaneous phase and envelope measurements.Geophysical Journal International, 185(2):845–870, 05 2011

    Ebru Bozda˘ g, Jeannot Trampert, and Jeroen Tromp. Misfit functions for full waveform inversion based on instantaneous phase and envelope measurements.Geophysical Journal International, 185(2):845–870, 05 2011. ISSN 0956-540X. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011. 04970.x. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.04970.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-246x.2011 2011

  4. [4]

    Virieux and S

    J. Virieux and S. Operto. An overview of full-waveform inversion in exploration geophysics. Geophysics, 74(6):WCC1–WCC26, 12 2009. ISSN 0016-8033. doi: 10.1190/1.3238367. URL https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3238367

    work page doi:10.1190/1.3238367 2009

  5. [5]

    Distributed acoustic sensing turns fiber-optic cables into sensitive seismic antennas.Seismological Research Letters, 91(1):1–15, 2020

    Zhongwen Zhan. Distributed acoustic sensing turns fiber-optic cables into sensitive seismic antennas.Seismological Research Letters, 91(1):1–15, 2020

    2020

  6. [6]

    Wiskin, D

    J. Wiskin, D. T. Borup, S. A. Johnson, and M. Berggren. Non-linear inverse scattering: High resolution quantitative breast tissue tomography.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131(5):3802–3813, 05 2012. ISSN 0001-4966. doi: 10.1121/1.3699240. URL https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3699240

    work page doi:10.1121/1.3699240 2012

  7. [7]

    Frequency domain ultrasound waveform tomography: breast imaging using a ring transducer.Physics in Medicine & Biology, 60(14):5381, jun 2015

    G Y Sandhu, C Li, O Roy, S Schmidt, and N Duric. Frequency domain ultrasound waveform tomography: breast imaging using a ring transducer.Physics in Medicine & Biology, 60(14):5381, jun 2015. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/14/5381. URL https: //doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/60/14/5381

    work page doi:10.1088/0031-9155/60/14/5381 2015

  8. [8]

    Wang and Junjie Yao

    Lihong V. Wang and Junjie Yao. A practical guide to photoacoustic tomography in the life sciences.Nature Methods, 13(8):627–638, 08 2016. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3925. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3925

    work page doi:10.1038/nmeth.3925 2016

  9. [9]

    Guided wave tomography based on full waveform inversion.IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, 63(5): 737–745, 2016

    Jing Rao, Madis Ratassepp, and Zheng Fan. Guided wave tomography based on full waveform inversion.IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, 63(5): 737–745, 2016. doi: 10.1109/TUFFC.2016.2536144

    work page doi:10.1109/tuffc.2016.2536144 2016

  10. [10]

    Raissi, P

    M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G.E. Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations.Journal of Computational Physics, 378:686–707, 2019. ISSN 0021-9991. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ scien...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045 2019

  11. [11]

    Solving the frequency-domain acoustic vti wave equation using physics-informed neural networks.Geophysical Journal International, 225(2):846–859, 01 2021

    Chao Song, Tariq Alkhalifah, and Umair Bin Waheed. Solving the frequency-domain acoustic vti wave equation using physics-informed neural networks.Geophysical Journal International, 225(2):846–859, 01 2021. ISSN 0956-540X. doi: 10.1093/gji/ggab010. URL https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggab010

    work page doi:10.1093/gji/ggab010 2021

  12. [12]

    Pinntomo: Seismic tomography using physics-informed neural networks, 2021

    Umair bin Waheed, Tariq Alkhalifah, Ehsan Haghighat, Chao Song, and Jean Virieux. Pinntomo: Seismic tomography using physics-informed neural networks, 2021. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2104.01588

    arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Full wave inversion for ultrasound tomography using physics based deep neural network

    Xilun Liu and Mohamed Almekkawy. Full wave inversion for ultrasound tomography using physics based deep neural network. In2023 IEEE 20th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), pages 1–4, 2023. doi: 10.1109/ISBI53787.2023.10230537. 14

    work page doi:10.1109/isbi53787.2023.10230537 2023

  14. [14]

    Physics-informed neural networks (pinns) for wave propagation and full waveform in- versions.Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 127(5), 2022

    Majid Rasht-Behesht, Christian Huber, Khemraj Shukla, and George Em Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks (pinns) for wave propagation and full waveform in- versions.Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 127(5), 2022. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1029/2021JB023120. URL https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/abs/10.1029/2021JB023120

    work page doi:10.1029/2021jb023120 2022

  15. [15]

    Ben Moseley, Andrew Markham, and Tarje Nissen-Meyer. Finite basis physics-informed neural networks (FBPINNs): a scalable domain decomposition approach for solving dif- ferential equations.Advances in Computational Mathematics, 49(4):62, 07 2023. doi: 10.1007/s10444-023-10065-9. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10444-023-10065-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s10444-023-10065-9 2023

  16. [16]

    Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond.Quantum, 2:79, August

    John Preskill. Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond.Quantum, 2:79, August

  17. [17]

    Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond

    ISSN 2521-327X. doi: 10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79. URL https://doi.org/10.22331/ q-2018-08-06-79

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79 2018

  18. [18]

    Svore, and Nathan Wiebe

    Maria Schuld, Alex Bocharov, Krysta M. Svore, and Nathan Wiebe. Circuit-centric quantum classifiers.Phys. Rev. A, 101:032308, Mar 2020. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.101.032308. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.101.032308

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.101.032308 2020

  19. [19]

    Quantum Science and Technology , author =

    Marcello Benedetti, Erika Lloyd, Stefan Sack, and Mattia Fiorentini. Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models.Quantum Science and Technology, 4(4):043001, nov 2019. doi: 10.1088/2058-9565/ab4eb5. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ab4eb5

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab4eb5 2019

  20. [20]

    Structure optimization for parameterized quantum circuits.Quantum, 5:391, January 2021

    Mateusz Ostaszewski, Edward Grant, and Marcello Benedetti. Structure optimization for parameterized quantum circuits.Quantum, 5:391, January 2021. ISSN 2521-327X. doi: 10.22331/q-2021-01-28-391. URLhttps://doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-01-28-391

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2021-01-28-391 2021

  21. [21]

    Paine, Vincent E

    Annie E. Paine, Vincent E. Elfving, and Oleksandr Kyriienko. Quantum quantile mechanics: Solving stochastic differential equations for generating time-series.Advanced Quantum Technologies, 6(10):2300065, 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/qute.202300065. URL https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/qute.202300065

    work page doi:10.1002/qute.202300065 2023

  22. [22]

    Hybrid quantum physics-informed neural network: Towards efficient learning of high-speed flows.Computers & Fluids, 301:106782, 2025

    Fong Yew Leong, Wei-Bin Ewe, Si Bui Quang Tran, Zhongyuan Zhang, and Jun Yong Khoo. Hybrid quantum physics-informed neural network: Towards efficient learning of high-speed flows.Computers & Fluids, 301:106782, 2025. ISSN 0045-7930. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.compfluid.2025.106782. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0045793025002427

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Trainable embedding quantum physics informed neural networks for solving nonlinear PDEs.Scientific Reports, 15(1):18823, 05 2025

    Stefan Berger, Norbert Hosters, and Matthias M¨ oller. Trainable embedding quantum physics informed neural networks for solving nonlinear PDEs.Scientific Reports, 15(1):18823, 05 2025. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-02959-z. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02959-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-025-02959-z 2025

  24. [24]

    Seismic traveltime inversion with quantum annealing

    Hoang Anh Nguyen and Ali Tura. Seismic traveltime inversion with quantum annealing. Scientific Reports, 15(1):17984, 2025. ISSN 2045-2322. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-01188-8. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-01188-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-025-01188-8 2025

  25. [25]

    Pre-stack and post-stack seismic inversion using quantum computing.Geophysics, 04 2026

    Divakar Vashisth, Rodney Lessard, and Tapan Mukerji. Pre-stack and post-stack seismic inversion using quantum computing.Geophysics, 04 2026. doi: 10.1190/GEO-2025-0186. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1190/GEO-2025-0186

    work page doi:10.1190/geo-2025-0186 2026

  26. [26]

    Divakar Vashisth, Rohan Sharma, Tejas Ganesh Iyer, Tapan Mukerji, and Mrinal K. Sen. Seismic inversion using hybrid quantum neural networks, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2503.05009

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Dimitri Komatitsch and Jean-Pierre Vilotte. The spectral element method: An efficient tool to simulate the seismic response of 2d and 3d geological structures.Bulletin of the 15 Seismological Society of America, 88(2):368–392, 04 1998. ISSN 0037-1106. doi: 10.1785/ BSSA0880020368. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0880020368

    work page doi:10.1785/bssa0880020368 1998

  28. [28]

    Nature Reviews Physics , author =

    M. Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C. Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jarrod R. McClean, Kosuke Mitarai, Xiao Yuan, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J. Coles. Variational quantum algorithms.Nature Reviews Physics, 3(9):625–644, 2021. ISSN 2522-5820. doi: 10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ s42254-021-00348-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9 2021

  29. [29]

    Schuld, R

    Maria Schuld, Ryan Sweke, and Johannes Jakob Meyer. Effect of data encoding on the expressive power of variational quantum-machine-learning models.Phys. Rev. A, 103: 032430, Mar 2021. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.103.032430. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.103.032430

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.103.032430 2021

  30. [30]

    Srinivasan, Ben Mildenhall, Sara Fridovich-Keil, Nithin Raghavan, Utkarsh Singhal, Ravi Ramamoorthi, Jonathan T

    Matthew Tancik, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Ben Mildenhall, Sara Fridovich-Keil, Nithin Raghavan, Utkarsh Singhal, Ravi Ramamoorthi, Jonathan T. Barron, and Ren Ng. Fourier features let networks learn high frequency functions in low dimensional domains. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 7537–7547, 2020

    2020

  31. [31]

    Vincent Sitzmann, Julien N. P. Martel, Alexander W. Bergman, David B. Lindell, and Gordon Wetzstein. Implicit neural representations with periodic activation functions. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS ’20, Red Hook, NY, USA, 2020. Curran Associates Inc. ISBN 9781713829546

    2020

  32. [32]

    Nature Communications , author =

    Jarrod R. McClean, Sergio Boixo, Vadim N. Smelyanskiy, Ryan Babbush, and Hartmut Neven. Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes.Nature Communications, 9 (1):4812, 2018. ISSN 2041-1723. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07090-4. URL https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41467-018-07090-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07090-4 2018

  33. [33]

    Krishnapriyan, Amir Gholami, Shandian Zhe, Robert M

    Aditi S. Krishnapriyan, Amir Gholami, Shandian Zhe, Robert M. Kirby, and Michael W. Mahoney. Characterizing possible failure modes in physics-informed neural networks. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS ’21, Red Hook, NY, USA, 2021. Curran Associates Inc. ISBN 9781713845393

    2021

  34. [34]

    Advanced Quantum Technologies , author =

    Sukin Sim, Peter D. Johnson, and Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik. Expressibility and entangling capability of parameterized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum-classical algorithms.Ad- vanced Quantum Technologies, 2(12):1900070, 2019. doi: 10.1002/qute.201900070. URL https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/qute.201900070

    work page doi:10.1002/qute.201900070 2019

  35. [35]

    Quantum Science and Technology

    Maria Schuld and Francesco Petruccione.Machine Learning with Quantum Computers. Quantum Science and Technology. Springer, 2nd edition, 2021

    2021

  36. [36]

    JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 2018

    James Bradbury, Roy Frostig, Peter Hawkins, Matthew James Johnson, Chris Leary, Dougal Maclaurin, George Necula, Adam Paszke, Jake VanderPlas, Skye Wanderman-Milne, and Qiao Zhang. JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 2018. URL http://github.com/jax-ml/jax

    2018

  37. [37]

    Sohaib Alam, Guillermo Alonso-Linaje, B

    Ville Bergholm, Josh Izaac, Maria Schuld, Christian Gogolin, Shahnawaz Ahmed, Vishnu Ajith, M. Sohaib Alam, Guillermo Alonso-Linaje, B. AkashNarayanan, Ali Asadi, Juan Miguel Arrazola, Utkarsh Azad, Sam Banning, Carsten Blank, Thomas R Bromley, Benjamin A. Cordier, Jack Ceroni, Alain Delgado, Olivia Di Matteo, Amintor Dusko, Tanya Garg, Diego Guala, Antho...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Wood, Jake Lishman, Julien Gacon, Simon Martiel, Paul D

    Ali Javadi-Abhari, Matthew Treinish, Kevin Krsulich, Christopher J. Wood, Jake Lishman, Julien Gacon, Simon Martiel, Paul D. Nation, Lev S. Bishop, Andrew W. Cross, Blake R. Johnson, and Jay M. Gambetta. Quantum computing with qiskit, 2024. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2405.08810

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Quantum circuit learning.Physical Review A, 98(3):032309, Sep 2018

    Kosuke Mitarai, Makoto Negoro, Masahiro Kitagawa, and Keisuke Fujii. Quantum circuit learning.Physical Review A, 98(3):032309, Sep 2018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.98.032309. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.032309

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.98.032309 2018

  40. [40]

    Evalu- ating analytic gradients on quantum hardware.Physical Review A, 99(3):032331, Mar 2019

    Maria Schuld, Ville Bergholm, Christian Gogolin, Josh Izaac, and Nathan Killoran. Evalu- ating analytic gradients on quantum hardware.Physical Review A, 99(3):032331, Mar 2019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.99.032331. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 99.032331. 17 Supplementary Information Supplementary Note: Quantum background For completeness, we ...

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.99.032331 2019