Quantum Pointwise Convolution: A Flexible and Scalable Approach for Neural Network Enhancement

An Ning; Nan-Yow Chen; Tai-Yue Li

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 21 references

Quantum Pointwise Convolution: A Flexible and Scalable Approach for Neural Network Enhancement

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a parameterized quantum circuit can replace the pointwise (1x1) convolution layer in a CNN, matching or beating classical accuracy on FashionMNIST and CIFAR10 while using significantly fewer trainable parameters.

desk verdict Novel architecture, but the empirical comparison is too uncontrolled to support the claimed quantum advantage. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01241 v1 pith:AZDLO5IN submitted 2024-12-02 cs.LG quant-ph

An Ning , Tai-Yue Li , Nan-Yow Chen This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGquant-ph

keywords quantumpointwiseconvolution1x1amplitudeencodingstronglyentanglingcircuitshybridquantum-classicalmodelFashionMNISTCIFAR10parameter-shiftrule

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 proposes an architecture called Quantum Pointwise Convolution, in which the classical 1x1 pointwise convolution of a CNN is replaced by a parameterized quantum circuit. For each pixel, the vector of channel values is normalized and amplitude-encoded into a small register of qubits; the circuit then applies alternating rotations and entangling gates, and each qubit is measured to produce one output feature map. Because one circuit produces several feature maps and its parameters are shared across all pixels, the layer needs few trainable parameters. The authors report that in classification experiments on FashionMNIST and CIFAR10, the quantum version matches or outperforms an otherwise similar classical CNN while using significantly fewer parameters.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the quantum pointwise convolution kernel, a strongly entangling parameterized circuit. Its unitary is $U(\theta) = \prod_{\ell=1}^L B_\ell(\theta_\ell)$, where each block $B_\ell$ alternates single-qubit rotations (Rz-Rx-Rz) with controlled phase/CNOT gates that entangle all qubits. Amplitude encoding compresses the channel vector into the state amplitudes, and measuring each qubit with a Pauli-Z operator turns one circuit into several output feature maps. Sharing the same rotation angles across every pixel gives the weight-sharing property of a classical convolution kernel, while the parameter-shift rule supplies the gradients that make the whole network trainable.

What would settle it

Train the classical network of Fig. 3(b) with BatchNorm removed to match the quantum network of Fig. 3(a), using the same random seeds, optimizer, and learning-rate schedule on CIFAR10; if this modified classical model reaches or exceeds roughly 90% accuracy, the claimed advantage of the quantum layer disappears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that pointwise convolution, normally a linear channel-mixing operation, can be implemented as a nonlinear quantum feature map without sacrificing accuracy. A single quantum circuit takes a pixel's channel vector, amplitude-encodes it into $n$ qubits, applies $L$ strongly entangling blocks of single-qubit rotations and CNOT gates, and reads out the Pauli-Z expectation of every qubit, yielding $n$ feature maps per circuit. Multiple circuits act as multiple convolution kernels, and circuit weights are shared over every spatial position. Trained end-to-end by the parameter-shift rule, this layer lifts the test accuracy of the demonstration network above 95% on FashionMNIST and to roughly 90% on CIFAR10, above the classical comparison, with fewer trainable parameters. In the paper's own words, substituting classical convolution with quantum circuits gave equivalent or better performance with significantly fewer parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the classical baseline, which has BatchNorm and ReLU after every layer, is a fair and adequately tuned comparison to the quantum model, which has no BatchNorm and only one ReLU.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Wherever a CNN uses a 1x1 pointwise convolution, the quantum layer can be substituted directly, for example inside MobileNet-style depthwise separable blocks or ResNet bottleneck layers.
Because one circuit with $n$ qubits outputs $n$ feature maps, the layer expands channel counts while adding comparatively few trainable parameters.
Deepening the quantum circuit (up to four entangling layers in the experiments) monotonically improves accuracy, indicating that circuit depth is a useful resource for this layer.
Amplitude encoding keeps the qubit count logarithmic in the number of input channels, so the layer remains compact when channel counts grow.

Reading between the lines

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

The comparison is not controlled: the classical model has BatchNorm and ReLU after every layer while the quantum model has neither, so the reported accuracy gap may reflect regularization differences rather than quantum feature maps.
The experiments run only on a noiseless simulator; on actual quantum hardware, amplitude encoding and entangling gates introduce noise that could erase the parameter-count advantage.
Since circuit parameters are shared across pixels and the circuit sees only the channel vector at one position, the layer is translation equivariant but spatially blind; its usefulness likely depends on neighboring spatial convolutions providing context.
A direct test suggested by the claim would be to insert the quantum layer into MobileNet's depthwise separable convolutions with matched BatchNorm on both sides, and compare accuracy and parameter counts on a larger dataset.

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 proposes quantum pointwise convolution—using a variational quantum circuit as a 1x1 kernel that maps each pixel's channel vector to a fixed number of output channels. That is a genuinely new variant: prior QCNNs operate over spatial patches, and this per-channel operation appears in no cited reference. The writing is clear, the PennyLane implementation is standard, and the discussion of the hybrid CPU-GPU bottleneck is honest. Those are real strengths.

The problem is that everything the paper claims about performance rests on one uncontrolled comparison. The classical baseline in Fig. 3b has BatchNorm and ReLU after every layer; the quantum model in Fig. 3a has no BatchNorm and a single ReLU. That architectural mismatch changes the optimization landscape and generalization behavior, so the reported accuracy gaps (quantum ~90% vs classical ~80% on CIFAR10) could come entirely from the missing normalization. There are no seeds, no error bars, no hyperparameter sweeps, and no code, so the comparison cannot be reproduced or evaluated. The classical model's accuracy is also internally inconsistent: it peaks near 80% in Fig 7 but near 70% in Fig 8 for the same architecture. The channel-count arithmetic does not reconcile either—the text says a circuit with n_qubits=6 produces six feature maps, so 64 and 128 output channels require non-integer numbers of circuits, and the paper never explains how that is handled. Finally, the conclusion's headline claim—"significantly fewer parameters"—is never backed by a single parameter count, which is doubly frustrating because that is the paper's main advertised advantage. The abstract says "competitive performance"; the conclusion says "superior"; neither is supported as written.

I agree with the stress-test note. The central empirical claim is unsubstantiated. That said, the core idea is not bad, and a proper study with matched baselines, multiple seeds, and reported parameter counts could be worth publishing. As it stands, I would not cite this paper and would not send it to a top venue. If it crossed my desk, I'd reject with a clear path to revision rather than desk-reject out of hand, but only because the architecture is novel enough to merit one more chance with real experimental discipline.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a 'quantum pointwise convolution' layer that replaces a classical 1x1 convolution: for each spatial position, the channel vector is amplitude-encoded into a few qubits, processed by a strongly entangling parameterized circuit, and measured in the Pauli-Z basis, with several circuits concatenated to form output channels. The authors embed this layer in a small CNN (Fig. 3a) and compare it with a classical counterpart (Fig. 3b) on FashionMNIST and CIFAR10. They report faster loss decrease and higher accuracy for the quantum model, and conclude in Section V that substituting classical convolution with quantum circuits yields equivalent or better performance with significantly fewer parameters. A second experiment varies the number of entangling layers.

Significance. The idea of using a parameterized quantum circuit as a channel-mixing 1x1 convolution is coherent and potentially useful: it maps naturally onto existing CNN architectures, and the design choices (amplitude encoding, weight sharing, one circuit per kernel, multiple measured qubits per circuit) are reasonable. If the empirical comparison were properly controlled, a demonstration that a quantum pointwise layer matches or beats a classical pointwise layer at equal or lower parameter count would be of interest to the quantum machine learning community. However, the current paper does not deliver that demonstration: the baseline is architecturally mismatched, no error bars or seeds are reported, the reported classical accuracy is internally inconsistent, and the claimed parameter reduction is never quantified. The contribution is therefore conditional on a substantially strengthened experimental section.

major comments (4)

[Section IV, Fig. 3] The comparison in Fig. 3 is not matched. The classical model in Fig. 3(b) has BatchNorm and ReLU after every convolution, whereas the quantum model in Fig. 3(a) has no BatchNorm and only one ReLU after the 3x3 layer. Since BatchNorm changes the optimization landscape and generalization, the accuracy deltas in Figs. 4-7 are not attributable to the quantum pointwise layer. The authors should compare architectures that differ only in the pointwise layer (both with or both without BN/ReLU, with the same placement), and should state explicitly that the comparison is controlled in this sense.
[Section IV.B, Figs. 7 and 8] The reported classical accuracy is inconsistent: the text for Fig. 7 states that the classical model stabilizes around 80%, while the text for Fig. 8 states that the classical model (same dataset, same architecture) reaches a peak of only about 70%. This discrepancy suggests unresolved variability or a setup difference between the two experiments. With no seeds and no error bars in any of the training curves, the claimed quantum advantage may be within run-to-run noise. I ask for multiple independent runs per configuration (at least 3-5 seeds) with mean and standard deviation, and a reconciliation of the two classical baselines.
[Section III.E and Fig. 3] The channel-count arithmetic is not consistent. Section III.E.1 defines Cout = ncircuits x nqubits, and the circuit in Fig. 1 uses nqubits = 6, so the output channel count should be a multiple of 6. However, Fig. 3 lists quantum 1x1 layers with 64 and 128 output channels, neither of which is divisible by 6. The values of nqubits and ncircuits used in the experiments are never stated. This must be specified precisely, otherwise the architecture is under-specified and the reported parameter and accuracy comparisons cannot be reproduced.
[Section V, Conclusion] The conclusion claims 'significantly fewer parameters' for the quantum model, but no parameter count is reported for either model anywhere in the manuscript. The claim may be true (e.g., if the quantum circuits contain only a few dozen rotation angles), but as written it is unsupported. Please report the exact number of trainable parameters for the quantum and classical models, including the classical fully connected layers, and show the comparison explicitly.

minor comments (5)

[Section IV.A] The text refers to 'multi-label classification' for FashionMNIST and CIFAR10, but these are multi-class classification tasks with mutually exclusive labels; the terminology should be corrected.
[Fig. 1 caption] The sentence 'Each qubit's state is measured using Pauli-Z operators transforming it into a quantum state' is garbled; measurement yields classical expectation values, not a quantum state.
[Fig. 4 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'traning' should be 'training'.
[Reference [20]] Reference [20] is formatted incorrectly ('e, Kaiming'); this is the ResNet paper by He et al. and should be cited properly.
[Section IV] The paper emphasizes NISQ deployability, but all experiments use the noiseless 'default.qubit' simulator; a brief discussion of noise sensitivity, or a small noise-model experiment, would clarify the practical claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central comparison is empirical, and no fitted parameter or self-citation is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical outcome: replacing classical pointwise convolutions with amplitude-encoded strongly entangling circuits yields competitive or better classification accuracy. Tracing the derivation chain, Section III defines the quantum circuit as a product of blocks U(θ)=∏B_l(θ_l) taken from circuit-centric classifier design [18], with gradients computed by the parameter-shift rule [19]; none of these formulas define the accuracy outcome in terms of itself. The reported results are training-curve observations in Figs. 4-8, not equations that reduce to their inputs. The classical baseline differs in normalization and activation placement (Fig. 3b adds BatchNorm and ReLU after every layer while Fig. 3a does not), which is a genuine experimental-control concern, but an uncontrolled comparator is a validity threat, not a circular reduction. The 'significantly fewer parameters' conclusion is unsupported because no parameter counts are reported, and the Cout = ncircuits × nqubits arithmetic is under-specified relative to the figure labels; these are evidentiary gaps rather than circularity. There are no load-bearing self-citations by the present authors, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported, so the paper has no significant circularity.

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

The central claim rests on manually chosen hyperparameters (n_qubits, layers, learning rate, batch size) and on domain assumptions about simulator correctness, amplitude-encoding efficiency, and baseline fairness. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

n_qubits = 6
Number of qubits in each quantum circuit; chosen by hand and determines the output feature map count per circuit.
strong_entangling_layers = 2 (main model); varied 1-4 in ablation
Depth of the quantum circuit blocks; chosen by hand and directly affects accuracy.
n_quantum_circuits = unspecified, inconsistent with Cout=64,128 and n_qubits=6
The paper states Cout = n_circuits * n_qubits, but with n_qubits=6 and Cout values 64 and 128, the number of circuits is non-integer and never specified.
learning_rate = 0.01
Initial learning rate for Adam optimizer; chosen by hand.
batch_size = 128 train, 64 test
Batch sizes for training and testing; chosen by hand.

assumptions (4)

standard math Standard quantum mechanics: unitary evolution and Born rule for expectation values
The circuit model and Pauli-Z measurements assume standard quantum mechanics.
domain assumption PennyLane's default.qubit simulator correctly computes state evolution, expectation values, and parameter-shift gradients
All results depend on the simulator's correctness; no verification against hardware is provided.
domain assumption Amplitude encoding of each pixel's channel vector can be implemented efficiently enough that the quantum layer's overhead does not negate its benefit
The paper does not analyze or benchmark the gate complexity of amplitude encoding.
domain assumption The classical baseline (with BatchNorm and ReLU) is a fair and appropriately tuned comparison to the quantum model (without BatchNorm)
The performance comparison in Figs. 4-8 assumes architectural parity, but the baselines differ in normalization and activation placement.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Pointwise Convolution: A Flexible and Scalable Approach for Neural Network Enhancement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AZDLO5IN

@misc{pith2026241201241,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Pointwise Convolution: A Flexible and Scalable Approach for Neural Network Enhancement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AZDLO5IN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01241}
}

read the original abstract

In this study, we propose a novel architecture, the Quantum Pointwise Convolution, which incorporates pointwise convolution within a quantum neural network framework. Our approach leverages the strengths of pointwise convolution to efficiently integrate information across feature channels while adjusting channel outputs. By using quantum circuits, we map data to a higher-dimensional space, capturing more complex feature relationships. To address the current limitations of quantum machine learning in the Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) era, we implement several design optimizations. These include amplitude encoding for data embedding, allowing more information to be processed with fewer qubits, and a weight-sharing mechanism that accelerates quantum pointwise convolution operations, reducing the need to retrain for each input pixels. In our experiments, we applied the quantum pointwise convolution layer to classification tasks on the FashionMNIST and CIFAR10 datasets, where our model demonstrated competitive performance compared to its classical counterpart. Furthermore, these optimizations not only improve the efficiency of the quantum pointwise convolutional layer but also make it more readily deployable in various CNN-based or deep learning models, broadening its potential applications across different architectures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01241 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The structure of quantum circuit with strongly entanglement layers (Blocks). The circuit first employs amplitude encoding, where the classical input [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The structure of a quantum pointwise convolutional layer. From a multi-channel feature map, collect pixel values at the same position across channels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** In (a), the quantum model architecture applies quantum pointwise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The figure presents a comparison between the quantum and classical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The figure presents a comparison between the quantum and classical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The figure shows the performance comparison between the quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The figure illustrates the comparison of accuracy over training epochs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The figure shows the performance comparison between the quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

Quantum support vector machine for big data classification,

P. Rebentrost, M. Mohseni, and S. Lloyd, “Quantum support vector machine for big data classification,” *Physical Review Letters*, vol. 113, no. 13, p. 130503, 2014

work page 2014
[2]

Quantum machine learning for support vector machine classification,

S. S. Kavitha and N. Kaulgud, “Quantum machine learning for support vector machine classification,” *Evolutionary Intelligence*, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 819–828, 2024

work page 2024
[3]

Quantum convolutional neural networks,

I. Cong, S. Choi, and M. D. Lukin, “Quantum convolutional neural networks,” *Nature Physics*, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 1273–1278, 2019

work page 2019
[4]

A quantum convolutional neural network on NISQ devices,

S. Wei, Y . Chen, Z. Zhou, and G. Long, “A quantum convolutional neural network on NISQ devices,” *AAPPS Bulletin*, vol. 32, pp. 1–11, 2022

work page 2022
[5]

Quantum convolutional neural network for classical data classification,

T. Hur, L. Kim, and D. K. Park, “Quantum convolutional neural network for classical data classification,” *Quantum Machine Intelligence*, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 3, 2022

work page 2022
[6]

Variational quantum circuits for deep reinforcement learning,

S. Y .-C. Chen, C.-H. H. Yang, J. Qi, P.-Y . Chen, X. Ma, and H.-S. Goan, “Variational quantum circuits for deep reinforcement learning,” *IEEE Access*, vol. 8, pp. 141007–141024, 2020

work page 2020
[7]

Quantum convo- lutional neural network based on variational quantum circuits,

L.-H. Gong, J.-J. Pei, T.-F. Zhang, and N.-R. Zhou, “Quantum convo- lutional neural network based on variational quantum circuits,” *Optics Communications*, vol. 550, p. 129993, 2024

work page 2024
[8]

Variational quantum generators: Generative adversarial quantum machine learning for continuous distri- butions,

J. Romero and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “Variational quantum generators: Generative adversarial quantum machine learning for continuous distri- butions,” *Advanced Quantum Technologies*, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 2000003, 2021

work page 2021

Show all 21 references

[9]

Quantum data learning for quantum simulations in high-energy physics,

L. Nagano, A. Miessen, T. Onodera, I. Tavernelli, F. Tacchino, and K. Terashi, “Quantum data learning for quantum simulations in high-energy physics,” *Physical Review Research*, vol. 5, no. 4, p. 043250, 2023

2023
[10]

Event classification with quantum machine learning in high- energy physics,

K. Terashi, M. Kaneda, T. Kishimoto, M. Saito, R. Sawada, and J. Tanaka, “Event classification with quantum machine learning in high- energy physics,” *Computing and Software for Big Science*, vol. 5, pp. 1–11, 2021

2021
[11]

Mobilenets: Efficient convolutional neural networks for mobile vision applications,

A. G. Howard, “Mobilenets: Efficient convolutional neural networks for mobile vision applications,” *arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04861*, 2017

2017 arXiv
[12]

Deep learning using rectified linear units (ReLU),

A. F. Agarap, “Deep learning using rectified linear units (ReLU),” *arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.08375*, 2018

2018 arXiv
[13]

Activation functions in deep learning: A comprehensive survey and benchmark,

S. R. Dubey, S. K. Singh, and B. B. Chaudhuri, “Activation functions in deep learning: A comprehensive survey and benchmark,” *Neurocom- puting*, vol. 503, pp. 92–108, 2022

2022
[14]

The generalized sigmoid activation function: Competitive supervised learning,

S. Narayan, “The generalized sigmoid activation function: Competitive supervised learning,” *Inf. Sci.*, vol. 99, no. 1–2, pp. 69–82, 1997

1997
[15]

Activation functions in neural networks,

S. Sharma, S. Sharma, and A. Athaiya, “Activation functions in neural networks,” *Towards Data Sci.*, vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 310–316, 2017

2017
[16]

Quantum algorithms for su- pervised and unsupervised machine learning,

S. Lloyd, M. Mohseni, and P. Rebentrost, “Quantum algorithms for su- pervised and unsupervised machine learning,” arXiv:1307.0411*, 2013

2013 arXiv
[17]

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, *et al.*, “Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations,” *arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.04968*, 2018

2018 arXiv
[18]

Circuit-centric quantum classifiers,

M. Schuld, A. Bocharov, K. M. Svore, and N. Wiebe, “Circuit-centric quantum classifiers,” *Physical Review A*, vol. 101, no. 3, p. 032308, 2020

2020
[19]

Wierichs, J

D. Wierichs, J. Izaac, C. Wang, and C. Y .-Y . Lin, ”General parameter- shift rules for quantum gradients,” Quantum, vol. 6, p. 677, 2022

2022
[20]

Deep residual learning for image recognition,

e, Kaiming and Zhang, Xiangyu and Ren, Shaoqing and Sun, Jian, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016

2016
[21]

Stoudenmire and D

E. Stoudenmire and D. J. Schwab, ”Supervised learning with tensor networks,” *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, vol. 29, 2016

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Quantum support vector machine for big data classification,

P. Rebentrost, M. Mohseni, and S. Lloyd, “Quantum support vector machine for big data classification,” *Physical Review Letters*, vol. 113, no. 13, p. 130503, 2014

work page 2014

[2] [2]

Quantum machine learning for support vector machine classification,

S. S. Kavitha and N. Kaulgud, “Quantum machine learning for support vector machine classification,” *Evolutionary Intelligence*, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 819–828, 2024

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Quantum convolutional neural networks,

I. Cong, S. Choi, and M. D. Lukin, “Quantum convolutional neural networks,” *Nature Physics*, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 1273–1278, 2019

work page 2019

[4] [4]

A quantum convolutional neural network on NISQ devices,

S. Wei, Y . Chen, Z. Zhou, and G. Long, “A quantum convolutional neural network on NISQ devices,” *AAPPS Bulletin*, vol. 32, pp. 1–11, 2022

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Quantum convolutional neural network for classical data classification,

T. Hur, L. Kim, and D. K. Park, “Quantum convolutional neural network for classical data classification,” *Quantum Machine Intelligence*, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 3, 2022

work page 2022

[6] [6]

Variational quantum circuits for deep reinforcement learning,

S. Y .-C. Chen, C.-H. H. Yang, J. Qi, P.-Y . Chen, X. Ma, and H.-S. Goan, “Variational quantum circuits for deep reinforcement learning,” *IEEE Access*, vol. 8, pp. 141007–141024, 2020

work page 2020

[7] [7]

Quantum convo- lutional neural network based on variational quantum circuits,

L.-H. Gong, J.-J. Pei, T.-F. Zhang, and N.-R. Zhou, “Quantum convo- lutional neural network based on variational quantum circuits,” *Optics Communications*, vol. 550, p. 129993, 2024

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Variational quantum generators: Generative adversarial quantum machine learning for continuous distri- butions,

J. Romero and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “Variational quantum generators: Generative adversarial quantum machine learning for continuous distri- butions,” *Advanced Quantum Technologies*, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 2000003, 2021

work page 2021