Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Hybrid Quantum Classical Surrogate for Real Time Inverse Finite Element Modeling in Digital Twins

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a hybrid quantum-classical network maps seven bridge sensors to 1,017 nodal displacements with test MSE 3.16e-11, beating classical baselines and running roughly 2,000 times faster than one finite element solve.

desk verdict Interesting architecture for quantum-classical inverse FE surrogates, but the central empirical claim is unsupported by internally inconsistent metrics. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.00029 v1 pith:3E3CVLFO submitted 2025-07-30 quant-ph cs.LG

Azadeh Alavi , Sanduni Jayasinghe , Mojtaba Mahmoodian , Sam Mazaheri , John Thangarajah , Sujeeva Setunge This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.LG
keywords quantummachinelearningdigitaltwininversefiniteelementanalysisstructuralhealthmonitoringsymmetricpositivedefinitematricesparameterizedcircuitsurrogatemodelingbridge
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 establish that a hybrid quantum-classical neural network can act as a real-time surrogate for inverse finite element analysis in digital twins. The specific problem is mapping seven tilt-sensor readings from a bridge to 1,017 nodal displacements, where classical finite element inversion is slow and ill-posed. The proposed pipeline embeds sensor data into symmetric positive definite matrices via polynomial features, converts that into a quantum state through Hilbert-Schmidt mapping, processes it with a parameterized quantum circuit, and finishes with a classical neural network. The paper reports that this QMLP reaches MSE $3.16 \times 10^{-11}$ on the bridge test set, far below the classical MLP baseline near $10^{-3}$, and that inference takes milliseconds instead of roughly 30 seconds for one FE step. If the reported numbers hold, this would let digital twins update full structural displacement fields in near real time from sparse sensors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the symmetric positive definite (SPD) matrix built from a polynomial expansion of the seven sensor readings. The outer product of the expanded feature vector with itself, plus a small diagonal regularization, yields a positive definite matrix; taking its matrix square root and normalizing by the trace gives a valid density matrix. Hilbert-Schmidt vectorization then flattens that density matrix into a quantum state, and a parameterized quantum circuit with angle embedding and entangling layers transforms the state. Pauli expectation values from the circuit are passed to a classical network that outputs the 1,017 displacements. The pipeline's claim is that the SPD geometry and Hilbert-Schmidt embedding preserve nonlinear structure that a plain MLP misses.

What would settle it

Recompute the test-set target standard deviation from the reported RMSE and NRMSE(std) for the best QMLP row; the values imply a standard deviation near $7.7 \times 10^{-4}$, which would yield $R^2$ near 0.99995 rather than the reported 0.9856. Re-running all models on one fixed test split with identical target scaling and reporting raw prediction files would decide whether the quantum advantage is real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a hybrid quantum-classical multilayer perceptron can solve the inverse finite element problem end-to-end: seven tilt-meter readings from a bridge map to 1,017 nodal displacements with reported MSE $3.16 \times 10^{-11}$, beating purely classical baselines and running roughly 2,000 times faster than a single FE solve. The quantum part is not a standalone solver; it is a feature extractor whose outputs feed a classical regressor, and the paper attributes its accuracy to polynomial-plus-SPD embedding and Hilbert-Schmidt quantum encoding rather than to quantum speedup.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim collapses if the rows of the comparison table were not all evaluated on the same test set with the same target scaling; in the paper's best QMLP row the printed RMSE, NRMSE(std), and $R^2$ are not algebraically consistent, so that assumption is load-bearing and unverified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Inverse FE mapping from sparse sensors can run in milliseconds, so digital-twin updates can happen near real time rather than after a 30-second FE solve.
  • At the reported RMSE around $5.62 \times 10^{-6}$, predicted displacements across the 339 nodes would resolve sub-millimeter structural motion.
  • The full hybrid pipeline, at roughly 37.5 ms per sample, is about 2,000 times faster than one FE analysis step on the same bridge.
  • The same SPD-polynomial plus variational-circuit stack can be retrained for other large-scale structures with the same low-to-high dimensional sensor-to-field mapping.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the pipeline transfers, the same SPD-polynomial plus variational-circuit stack could be retrained for pipelines, offshore platforms, and other sensor-to-field inverse problems, because the dimensional mismatch has the same shape.
  • Beyond the paper: the reported 2,000x speedup is measured against a forward FE solve, not against an inverse solver; a deployment comparison would need to benchmark against the fastest classical inverse-surrogate alternative.
  • Beyond the paper: an independent re-run with a published fixed split, identical target scaling, and raw prediction files would settle whether the headline MSE is reproducible; the paper's printed metrics are not internally consistent.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hybrid quantum-classical multilayer perceptron (QMLP) for real-time inverse finite element modeling in a digital-twin setting. Seven tilt-meter readings are mapped to 1017 nodal displacements via a pipeline that combines polynomial feature expansion, symmetric positive definite (SPD) matrix construction, Hilbert-Schmidt vectorization, angle embedding into a parameterized quantum circuit, and a classical readout network. The authors report experiments on a bridge case study and claim that the best QMLP variant achieves an MSE of 3.16e-11, outperforming purely classical baselines by a large margin. The paper also includes a complexity comparison and a discussion of implications for structural health monitoring.

Significance. If the empirical results were reliable and reproducible, the paper would offer a useful application-oriented demonstration of a quantum-classical surrogate for inverse FE modeling, with a clearly described architectural pipeline and a rough complexity estimate. The methodology combines several known techniques (polynomial features, SPD encoding, variational circuits) in a plausible way for a low-dimensional-input, high-dimensional-output regression task. However, the central empirical claim rests entirely on Table 1, and that table is internally inconsistent. The reported MSE, RMSE, R2, and NRMSE values cannot all hold on the same test set, and the abstract's headline MSE contradicts the contributions section. Because the main evidence is not self-consistent, the paper does not currently support its central claim of large-margin QMLP superiority. The paper also provides no code or data, and the evaluation protocol is described too loosely to allow independent verification.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] The metrics in Table 1 are mutually inconsistent under the stated caption that all metrics were measured on the final test set. For the QMLP (Poly-SPD + HC + clustering) row, MSE=3.16e-11 and R2=0.9856 imply, via R2 = 1 - MSE/Var(target), a target variance of 2.19e-9 (standard deviation 4.68e-5), whereas NRMSE(std)=0.00726 with RMSE=5.62e-6 implies a target standard deviation of 7.74e-4. For the baseline classic MLP row, MSE=1.008e-3 and R2=0.9831 imply a target standard deviation of 0.244, while NRMSE(std)=0.03513 with RMSE=3.1e-2 implies a standard deviation of 0.883. No single test set can simultaneously satisfy these relations, so at least some of the reported metrics are miscalculated or were computed under different conditions. Since the abstract's headline result and the comparison against classical baselines rely on these numbers, the central empirical claim is unsupported.
  2. [Table 1 and Abstract] The abstract reports an MSE of 3.16e-11 for the proposed QMLP, while the third contributions bullet in the Introduction states 'superior performance (MSE 3.1 × 10−4)'. These two values differ by seven orders of magnitude. This is not a minor typo: it changes the claimed improvement over the baseline from about seven orders of magnitude to about one order of magnitude. The manuscript needs to state which number is correct and explain the discrepancy before the results can be interpreted.
  3. [Section 2.4 and Results, 'Clustering Analysis'] The evaluation protocol is underspecified and appears to involve model selection on the test set. The text says that the number of clusters k was chosen by comparing NRMSE and R2 for different k (Figure 4), and then 'all metrics were measured on the final test set' (Table 1). If the same data were used both to select k=7 and to report final performance, the reported metrics risk being optimistically biased. The paper should describe a proper train/validation/test split, state how many random seeds were used, and report variance or confidence intervals. Without this information, the performance differences in Table 1 cannot be assessed.
  4. [Table 1] The R2 ordering is impossible on the same target variable. For Classic MLP (Clustering enforced), MSE=7.40e-10 and R2=0.9878; for QMLP (Poly-SPD + HC + clustering), MSE=3.16e-11 and R2=0.9856. On a fixed test set with fixed target variance, a lower MSE must yield a higher or equal R2. The reported values violate this identity, confirming that the MSE and R2 columns are not computed consistently. This further undermines the comparison and points to a systematic issue in the evaluation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1 caption] The phrase 'thw proposed model' in the description of QMLP (Poly-SPD) + clustering contains a typo and should read 'the proposed model'.
  2. [Section 2.1, Eq. (6)-(8)] The feature expansion notation is inconsistent: the input vector is denoted x in Section 1.2 and Section 2.1, but the polynomial expansion in Eq. (2) uses x while later text reuses x for the expanded vector. The notation should be cleaned up to avoid confusion between raw measurements and expanded features.
  3. [Section 2.3] The text refers to 'Figure 2' and 'Figure 3' for the circuit and clustering plots, but the figure captions are interleaved confusingly; the circuit figure is mentioned before its caption appears, and Figure 3 is referenced for clustering results inside a section titled 'Clustering Analysis'. The figure numbering and in-text references should be checked.
  4. [References] Some references appear incomplete or have placeholder formatting, and the reference list contains several self-citations. The authors should verify that all bibliographic entries are complete and that the citation style is consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No demonstrated circularity: the QMLP pipeline is defined by independent feature transformations and empirical training; the main concerns are validation-set ambiguity, a self-citation for FE validation, and internally inconsistent Table 1 metrics, which are correctness issues rather than circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper's reported derivation chain consists of a feature embedding (polynomial expansion, SPD Gram matrix, regularization, normalization to a density matrix, Hilbert-Schmidt vectorization) and an end-to-end trained neural network. Equations (2)-(9) define these transforms directly from the sensor inputs and do not presuppose the claimed MSE/R^2 values; the accuracy figures in Table 1 are empirical outcomes of training, not quantities that equal the inputs by construction. I therefore find no self-definitional or equation-level circularity. The FE model that generates the data is validated by citing the authors' prior work [11]; because that prior work is anchored to real sensor measurements and is not a theorem invented for this paper, it is a legitimate external support rather than a self-citation loop, although the present paper should have summarized the validation evidence. The hyperparameter k is chosen by assessing MLP performance (Fig. 4) before the final test-set table, but the text does not state that the selection set is the same as the final test set, so calling this a fitted-input prediction would require speculation. The more serious problem is that Table 1's metrics are arithmetically inconsistent under the stated 'same final test set' premise (MSE and R2 imply target variances differing by orders of magnitude across rows), and the abstract's 3.16e-11 MSE conflicts with the contributions bullet's 3.1e-4. Those inconsistencies undermine the central claim, but they are correctness/statistical-reporting issues, not circularity. Overall circularity score: 2, for the minor load-bearing self-citation and the unstated validation split, with the central empirical claim retaining independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities; it uses quantum states and SPD matrices as computational representations. The central claim rests on several free hyperparameters tuned without a clear validation protocol and on domain assumptions about the FE surrogate's fidelity.

free parameters (5)
  • Polynomial degree d = 2 or 3 (pseudocode uses 3)
    The degree of polynomial expansion controls feature dimension and is chosen without justification; Table 1 reports results for degree 2 or 3.
  • Regularization epsilon = 1e-6
    Added to the diagonal of the Gram matrix to enforce SPD; value is chosen ad hoc.
  • Number of variational layers L = 10
    Circuit depth used in the implementation; no ablation or justification.
  • Clustering k for hidden layer size = 7
    Selected based on NRMSE and R2 in Figure 4, with no described validation split; the optimal value from standard metrics was 3, 4, or 6, but 7 was chosen as best.
  • Hidden layer sizes = 64 and 32 for baseline; cluster-based for QMLP variants
    Network architecture is manually chosen; the clustering choice sets the penultimate layer dimension.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math SPD matrix from outer product plus diagonal regularization is a valid density matrix after normalization
    Section 2.1 Eqs. (6)-(8).
  • standard math Hilbert-Schmidt vectorization maps a density matrix to a pure state on n^2 dimensions
    Section 2.2 Eq. (9).
  • domain assumption Static FE approximations with random load combinations represent the bridge behavior in the operational envelope
    Section 1.2; the FE model was validated in prior work (ref 11) but the surrogate is trained entirely on simulated data.
  • domain assumption The problem of mapping 7 sensor readings to 1017 displacements is learnable and the training distribution covers deployment conditions
    Section 1.2 and 1.3; no out-of-distribution analysis is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hybrid Quantum Classical Surrogate for Real Time Inverse Finite Element Modeling in Digital Twins." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3E3CVLFO

@misc{pith2026250800029,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hybrid Quantum Classical Surrogate for Real Time Inverse Finite Element Modeling in Digital Twins},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3E3CVLFO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.00029}
}
read the original abstract

Large-scale civil structures, such as bridges, pipelines, and offshore platforms, are vital to modern infrastructure, where unexpected failures can cause significant economic and safety repercussions. Although finite element (FE) modeling is widely used for real-time structural health monitoring (SHM), its high computational cost and the complexity of inverse FE analysis, where low dimensional sensor data must map onto high-dimensional displacement or stress fields pose ongoing challenges. Here, we propose a hybrid quantum classical multilayer perceptron (QMLP) framework to tackle these issues and facilitate swift updates to digital twins across a range of structural applications. Our approach embeds sensor data using symmetric positive definite (SPD) matrices and polynomial features, yielding a representation well suited to quantum processing. A parameterized quantum circuit (PQC) transforms these features, and the resultant quantum outputs feed into a classical neural network for final inference. By fusing quantum capabilities with classical modeling, the QMLP handles large scale inverse FE mapping while preserving computational viability. Through extensive experiments on a bridge, we demonstrate that the QMLP achieves a mean squared error (MSE) of 0.0000000000316, outperforming purely classical baselines with a large margin. These findings confirm the potential of quantum-enhanced methods for real time SHM, establishing a pathway toward more efficient, scalable digital twins that can robustly monitor and diagnose structural integrity in near real time.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Mazaheri, S

    Mahmoodian, M., Shahrivar, F., Setunge, S. & Mazaheri, S. Development of digital twin for intelligent maintenance of civil infrastructure. ��������������14, DOI: doi.org/10.3390/su14148664 (2022). 11/14

    work page doi:10.3390/su14148664 2022

  2. [2]

    & Catal, C

    van Dinter, R., Tekinerdogan, B. & Catal, C. Predictive maintenance using digital twins: A systematic literature review. ���� ������ ��������151, 107008, DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2022.107008 (2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    & McMillan, L

    Callcut, M., Cerceau Agliozzo, J.-P., Varga, L. & McMillan, L. Digital twins in civil infrastructure systems. ��������������13, DOI: 10.3390/su132011549 (2021)

    work page doi:10.3390/su132011549 2021

  4. [4]

    �� ���A digital twin of bridges for structural health monitoring

    Ye, C. �� ���A digital twin of bridges for structural health monitoring. In ����������� �� ��� ���� ������������� �������� �� ���������� ������ ���������� ����, DOI: 10.12783/shm2019/32287 (2019)

    work page doi:10.12783/shm2019/32287 2019

  5. [5]

    Liu, G. R. Fea-ai and ai-ai: Two-way deepnets for real-time computations for both forward and inverse mechanics problems. ���� �� ������� �������16, 1950045, DOI: 10.1142/S0219876219500452 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1142/s0219876219500452 2019

  6. [6]

    Gupta, D. K. ������� ������� ��� ���� ������������� ��������� �� ������� ������ ��������� ��� ����� ����� ���������. Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (2013)

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    �� ���Approach towards the development of digital twin for structural health monitoring of civil infrastruc- ture: A comprehensive review

    Sun, Z. �� ���Approach towards the development of digital twin for structural health monitoring of civil infrastruc- ture: A comprehensive review. �������25, DOI: 10.3390/s25010059 (2025)

    work page doi:10.3390/s25010059 2025

  8. [8]

    Guan, Q., Yang, Z., Guo, N. & Hu, Z. Finite element geotechnical analysis incorporating deep learning-based soil model. ������� ��������154, 105120, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2022.105120 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    �� ���Application of machine learning for real-time structural integrity assessment of bridges

    Jayasinghe, S. �� ���Application of machine learning for real-time structural integrity assessment of bridges. ��������6, DOI: 10.3390/civileng6010002 (2025)

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    �� ���Finite element method-enhanced neural network for forward and inverse problems

    Ellath Meethal, R. �� ���Finite element method-enhanced neural network for forward and inverse problems. ���� ������ ������ ���� ����10, DOI: 10.1186/s40323-023-00243-1 (2023)

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    �� ���Innovative digital twin with artificial neural networks for real-time monitoring of structural response: A port structure case study

    Jayasinghe, S. �� ���Innovative digital twin with artificial neural networks for real-time monitoring of structural response: A port structure case study. ������ ����312, 119187, DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2024.119187 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    & Castillo, E

    Baiges, J., Codina, R., Castañar, I. & Castillo, E. A finite element reduced-order model based on adaptive mesh refinement and artificial neural networks. ���� �� ��� ������ ������� ����121, 588–601, DOI: https: //doi.org/10.1002/nme.6235 (2020)

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    Tao, F., Liu, X., Du, H. & Yu, W. Finite element coupled positive definite deep neural networks mechanics system for constitutive modeling of composites. ������� ������� ����� ����� ����391, 114548, DOI: https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2021.114548 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    & Sharifi, Y

    Tohidi, S. & Sharifi, Y . Load-carrying capacity of locally corroded steel plate girder ends using artificial neural network. ����������� �������100, 48–61, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2015.12.007 (2016)

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    & Rezaie, S

    Shahani, A., Setayeshi, S., Nodamaie, S., Asadi, M. & Rezaie, S. Prediction of influence parameters on the hot rolling process using finite element method and neural network. �� ������ �������� ��������209, 1920–1935, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2008.04.055 (2009)

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    K., Funke, S

    Mitusch, S. K., Funke, S. W. & Kuchta, M. Hybrid fem-nn models: Combining artificial neural networks with the finite element method. �� ������� �����446, 110651, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2021.110651 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    G., Geiger, B

    Hoffer, J. G., Geiger, B. C., Ofner, P. & Kern, R. Mesh-free surrogate models for structural mechanic fem simulation: A comparative study of approaches. ����� ����11, DOI: 10.3390/app11209411 (2021)

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    Y ., Pinkus, A

    Leshno, M., Lin, V . Y ., Pinkus, A. & Schocken, S. Multilayer feedforward networks with a nonpolynomial activation function can approximate any function. ������ ��������6, 861–867, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0893-6080(05)80131-5 (1993)

    1993

  11. [19]

    & Meschke, G

    Cao, B., Obel, M., Freitag, S., Mark, P. & Meschke, G. Artificial neural network surrogate modelling for real-time predictions and control of building damage during mechanised tunnelling. ���� ���� ������149, 102869, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2020.102869 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    & van de Weg, B

    Greve, L. & van de Weg, B. P. Surrogate modeling of parametrized finite element simulations with varying mesh topology using recurrent neural networks. �����14, 100137, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.array.2022.100137 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    & Sheng, D

    He, X., Xu, H. & Sheng, D. Ready-to-use deep-learning surrogate models for problems with spatially variable inputs and outputs. ���� ��������18, 1–18, DOI: 10.1007/s11440-022-01706-2 (2022)

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    �� ���An artificial neural network for surrogate modeling of stress fields in viscoplastic polycrystalline materials

    Sarkari Khorrami, M. �� ���An artificial neural network for surrogate modeling of stress fields in viscoplastic polycrystalline materials. ��� ������������� ���������9, DOI: 10.1038/s41524-023-00991-z (2023). 12/14

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    & Jamshidi, M

    Nourian, N., El-Badry, M. & Jamshidi, M. Design optimization of truss structures using a graph neural network- based surrogate model. ����������16, DOI: 10.3390/a16080380 (2023)

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Taghizadeh, M., Nabian, M. A. & Alemazkoor, N. Multifidelity graph neural networks for efficient and accurate mesh-based partial differential equations surrogate modeling. ������� ���� �������������� ����DOI: 10.1111/mice. 13312 (2024)

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    �� ���A convolutional neural network based crystal plasticity finite element framework to predict localised deformation in metals

    Ibragimova, O. �� ���A convolutional neural network based crystal plasticity finite element framework to predict localised deformation in metals. ���� �� ������157, 103374, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijplas.2022.103374 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    & Smarsly, K

    Ploennigs, J., Berger, M., Mevissen, M. & Smarsly, K. Quantum computing in civil engineering: Potentials and limitations (2024). 2402.14556

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Liu, Y ., Liu, J., Raney, J. R. & Wang, P. Quantum computing for solid mechanics and structural engineering – a demonstration with variational quantum eigensolver. ������� ����� �����67, 102117, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.eml.2023.102117 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    ����� ���� �108, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.108.022429 (2023)

    Sato, Y .�� ���Variational quantum algorithm for generalized eigenvalue problems and its application to the finite-element method. ����� ���� �108, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.108.022429 (2023)

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    & Pallister, S

    Montanaro, A. & Pallister, S. Quantum algorithms and the finite element method. ����� ���� � 93, DOI: 10.1103/physreva.93.032324 (2016)

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    Biamonte, J. D. �� ���Quantum machine learning. ������549, 195–202 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    & Mahmoodian, M

    Alavi, A., Jayasinghe, S. & Mahmoodian, M. Leveraging spd matrices on riemannian manifolds in quantum- classical hybrid models for structural health monitoring. In ����������� �� ��� ������������� ������� ���������� ��� ������� �������� ���������� ������(2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    �� ���Smart structural monitoring: Real-time bridge response using digital twins and inverse analysis

    Jayasinghe, S. �� ���Smart structural monitoring: Real-time bridge response using digital twins and inverse analysis. �������25 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    �� ���A review on the applications of artificial neural network techniques for accelerating finite element analysis in the civil engineering domain

    Jayasinghe, S. �� ���A review on the applications of artificial neural network techniques for accelerating finite element analysis in the civil engineering domain. ������� � �������310, 107698, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compstruc.2025.107698 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Altaisky, M. V . Quantum neural network.����� �������� ����������������(2001)

    2001

  27. [35]

    & Petruccione, F

    Schuld, M., Sinayskiy, I. & Petruccione, F. The quest for a quantum neural network. ������� ���� � �������13, 901–917 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    �� ���Continuous-variable quantum neural networks

    Killoran, N. �� ���Continuous-variable quantum neural networks. ����� ���� �98, 062312 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    R., Boixo, S., Smelyanskiy, V

    McClean, J. R., Boixo, S., Smelyanskiy, V . N., Babbush, R. & Neven, H. Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes. ���� ������� 9, 4812 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    & Wang, S

    Zhao, R. & Wang, S. A review of quantum neural networks: Methods, models, dilemma. ����� �������� ����������������(2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    & Makwana, P

    Kodinariya, T. & Makwana, P. Review on determining of cluster in k-means clustering. ���� �� ���� ���� ������� ���� ������ �����1, 90–95 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    Golub, G. H. & Van Loan, C. F. ������ ������������(Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013), 4th edn

    2013

  33. [41]

    Nielsen, M. A. & Chuang, I. L. ������� ����������� ��� ������� �����������(Cambridge University Press, 2010), 10th anniversary edition edn

    2010

  34. [42]

    & Yapa, H

    Jayasinghe, S., Abeysinghe, S. & Yapa, H. Structural retrofitting of impaired dapped-end beams: a review. ���� �� ���� ����50, 239–252, DOI: 10.1139/cjce-2021-0627 (2023). Author contributions statement A.A conceptualization of Quantum machine learning, Quantum machine learnin...

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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