Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

First-Principles Optical Descriptors and Hybrid Classical-Quantum Classification of Er-Doped CaF$_2$

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Er dopant fingerprints split CaF2 spectra at 98% accuracy

desk verdict Plausible TDDFT pipeline, invalid benchmark: 1,589 points from two smooth spectra are treated as independent, so the accuracies just interpolate two visibly different curves. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.00525 v1 pith:BCXXYM2Z submitted 2026-01-31 quant-ph

David Angel Alba Bonilla , Kerem Yurtseven , Krishan Sharma , Ragunath Chandrasekharan , Muhammad Khizar , Alireza Alipour , Dennis Delali Kwesi Wayo This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords Er-dopedCaF2TDDFTabsorptionspectraopticaldescriptorsquantummachinelearningsupportvectorneuralnetworkmaterialsclassificationspectralfingerprints
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 the optical fingerprints created by putting a single erbium atom in a calcium fluoride cluster—computed from first principles, not fitted to experiment—give a reliable, physically interpretable feature space for machine-learning classification, and that this feature space can serve as a meaningful benchmark for comparing near-term quantum classifiers against a classical baseline. Using time-dependent density-functional theory on a 24-atom cluster, the authors compute absorption spectra for pristine and Er-doped CaF2, extract three descriptors, and show a classical SVM separates the two classes almost perfectly, with 98.3% test accuracy. Quantum support-vector machines reach 85.1% on an ideal simulator, 81.7% under simulated noise, and 73.3% on real quantum hardware; a trainable hybrid quantum network reaches 93%. The point is not that quantum wins—it does not—but that first-principles spectral descriptors give a controlled, physically grounded setting in which to measure how much near-term quantum models lose to strong classical methods.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the Gaussian-broadened optical absorption spectrum computed by linear-response time-dependent density-functional theory for a 2x2x2 fluorite cluster with and without a substitutional erbium dopant. The mechanism that creates class separability is the erbium-induced redistribution of transition energies and oscillator strengths—a dense manifold of mid-energy excitations and a visible-region absorption peak absent in the pristine host. From these spectra the paper selects three scalar descriptors—absorption coefficient alpha, extinction coefficient kappa, and transition energy E—which are then fed to an RBF-kernel support vector machine, a quantum feature-map kernel, and

What would settle it

Run the same classifiers on a dataset where the energy grid is coarsely sampled (so neighboring training and test points are not adjacent) or split by contiguous energy blocks; if accuracy collapses or the classical near-perfect separation vanishes, the benchmark is measuring interpolation of two smooth spectra rather than learned discrimination.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that dopant-induced changes in the absorption spectrum are a sufficient and physically meaningful signature for classification. Replacing one calcium atom with erbium in a Ca8F16 cluster systematically red-shifts the dominant optical transitions and redistributes oscillator strength, producing enhanced visible absorption near 3 eV and shifting the strongest UV transition from about 7.1 to 6.1 eV. Once the discrete transitions are broadened into continuous spectra, the absorption coefficient, extinction coefficient, and transition energy separate the two systems almost perfectly in a classical kernel model. The same three descriptors, embedded through a quantum feature map,

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 1,589 energy-resolved points per system are independent, exchangeable samples, even though they are densely spaced points along two smooth absorption curves, so the reported accuracies measure generalization rather than interpolation of the two known spectra.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The three selected descriptors carry almost all discriminative information: a classical RBF-kernel SVM achieves 0.983 test accuracy and 0.999 ROC-AUC.
  • Fixed quantum kernels underperform the classical baseline: 0.851 accuracy on an ideal simulator, 0.817 under simulated depolarizing noise, and 0.733 on real quantum hardware.
  • A trainable hybrid quantum neural network reaches 0.93 test accuracy and 0.96 AUC, improving on fixed quantum kernels but still below the classical SVM.
  • The distinguishing spectral features persist across Gaussian broadening widths from 0.1 to 0.2 eV, indicating the fingerprint is not an artifact of the broadening choice.
  • The end-to-end pipeline—from first-principles spectra to feature selection to quantum kernel execution on hardware—runs successfully and stays above random guessing, even under finite-shot and decoherence constraints.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the 1,589 energy points per system are densely sampled along two smooth absorption curves, random point-wise train/test splits likely let classifiers interpolate the two known spectra; a harder and more meaningful benchmark would use independent material instances, such as different dopant concentrations, host sizes, or configurations.
  • The same three descriptors could be tested for transfer to other rare-earth dopants or fluoride hosts; strong transfer would show the fingerprints are dopant-generic, while collapse would reveal that they are specific to the CaF2:Er pair studied here.
  • The hardware-versus-simulation gap (0.733 vs 0.851) suggests a concrete follow-up test: increasing shot counts or applying error mitigation should move hardware accuracy toward the noisy-simulator value, a prediction that follows from the paper's own noise explanation but is not tested there.
  • If the aim is to benchmark near-term quantum learning, labeling individual energy bins on two known spectra is easier than classifying unseen material instances; future work should separate these two tasks explicitly.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs finite clusters of pristine CaF2 (Ca8F16) and Er-doped CaF2 (Ca7ErF16), computes their optical spectra with LR-TDDFT, and derives energy-resolved descriptors (transition energy E, extinction coefficient κ, absorption coefficient α) at 1,589 points per system. These descriptors are fed into a classical RBF SVM, quantum SVMs (statevector, noisy QASM, IBM hardware), and a hybrid quantum neural network. The reported accuracies are 0.983 (classical SVM), 0.851/0.817 (QSVM simulators), 0.733 (hardware QSVM on a 15-sample test slice), and 0.93 (hybrid QNN). The paper claims these results establish a robust, physically grounded feature space for benchmarking near-term quantum learning models against classical baselines.

Significance. If the benchmark were valid, the work would provide a useful template for combining first-principles optical descriptors with quantum classifiers, and the comparison of classical, simulator, and hardware results would inform NISQ-era materials informatics. The TDDFT workflow, including cluster construction, Casida calculations, and Gaussian broadening, is described in sufficient detail to be reproduced, and the authors provide code and data. However, the central statistical claim is undermined by the data construction: the 1,589 samples per class are not independent measurements but densely sampled points along two smooth, deterministic absorption curves. Consequently, the high classification accuracies largely reflect interpolation of two known spectra rather than generalization to new materials, dopant concentrations, or noise levels. This invalidates the abstract's claim that the feature space is 'robust' and that the benchmarks are meaningful. The paper's internal caveats (§III.E: the hardware slice 'cannot be considered definitive'; §II.B: the descriptor set is 'a set instead of an unordered sequence') do not address this more fundamental limitation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II.A, §III.B, Table I, Figure 8] The dataset consists of 1,589 energy-resolved points from each of only two smooth absorption spectra, one per material. Under the random point-wise train/test split used in §III.B–C, test points lie at energies immediately adjacent to training points on the same curve. Because the descriptors E, κ, α are continuous functions of energy with correlation length set by the Gaussian broadening σ=0.1–0.2 eV (Eq. 4) and the sampling spacing is much finer, the classifiers interpolate two known spectra. The reported test accuracy (0.983), AUC (0.999), and QML accuracies therefore do not measure generalization to unseen materials or configurations; they measure separability of two curves. The manuscript nowhere treats the two spectra as the evaluation unit. This is the load-bearing issue for the central claim that the descriptors form a 'robust feature space.'
  2. [§III.C–D, bootstrap confidence intervals] The bootstrap confidence intervals (e.g., classical SVM mean 0.983, 95% CI [0.965, 0.997]; QSVM SV [0.810, 0.893]) resample from the same dependent point dataset. Since the points are autocorrelated along each spectrum, the bootstrap only reflects sampling variability among correlated points on two fixed curves, not between-spectrum variability. It provides no evidence about how the models would perform on other dopant concentrations, cluster sizes, or disorder realizations. This does not rescue the generalization claim.
  3. [Abstract, §III.C, §III.F] The conclusion that dopant-induced optical fingerprints form a 'robust, physically grounded feature space for benchmarking near-term quantum learning models against strong classical baselines' is not supported by the experimental design. With only two systems, any sufficiently flexible classifier can achieve near-perfect separation on a fine energy grid. The physical descriptors may indeed be informative, but the benchmark as constructed cannot validate that claim. Demonstrating robustness would require multiple doped/undoped instances (different concentrations, cluster sizes, or host variants) with evaluation at the spectrum level, not at the level of individual energy points.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§III.E] The hardware QSVM uses only 30 training and 15 test samples; the authors correctly note that these results 'cannot be considered definitive,' but the small sample size should be more prominently featured in the abstract and conclusion, where the hardware accuracy is reported without qualification.
  2. [§II.B and Figure 9] Feature selection via linear SVM weights is performed on the data before describing the train/test split. If the weight-based ranking uses all 3,178 points, the selected features (α, κ, E) may incorporate information from the test set. The authors should clarify whether feature selection was nested inside the training folds or performed on the full dataset.
  3. [General] Some notation is introduced without explicit definition (e.g., 'N_{occ}' in Eq. 1, 'E_min' in Eq. 21). The paper would benefit from a table summarizing all hyperparameters and dataset sizes for each model, including the QNN's effective training sample count of 2,304 points and the relationship between this number and the 1,589-point per-system dataset.
  4. [§IV and Table II] The discussion compares QSVM and QNN accuracies across heterogeneous datasets (MNIST, hyperspectral images, polymer band gaps, ADME-Tox). These comparisons are not quantitatively meaningful without controlling for task difficulty, data size, and evaluation protocol. The text should clearly state that cross-dataset accuracy comparisons are illustrative only.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the classification benchmark uses simulated spectra and labels set by cluster composition, not by fitted outputs of the model itself.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is linear: DFT/TDDFT calculations (Eqs. 1-4) produce optical spectra, from which descriptors (E, kappa, alpha) are extracted; those descriptors are then fed into classical and quantum classifiers (Eqs. 6-21), and test accuracies are reported. Nowhere does a fitted parameter or a predicted quantity feed back into the definition of the descriptors or the labels. The class labels (pristine vs. Er-doped) are fixed by the cluster construction before any calculation, so the high classification accuracy is not obtained by fitting something and then re-predicting the same fitted quantity. The point-wise train/test split does mean that test points are interleaved with training points along two smooth spectra, so the reported accuracies partly reflect interpolation rather than generalization to new materials; that is a legitimate statistical/benchmark-validity concern, but it is not circularity under the definitions used here. The self-citations (e.g., refs. [3], [8], [13]) are contextual and not load-bearing for the main derivation. The paper itself explicitly cautions that the small hardware slice 'cannot be considered definitive' (§III.E), which further shows the authors do not overstate that result. Overall, the central claim is an empirical demonstration of separability of known spectra, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The central assumptions are the validity of the cluster TDDFT model and, critically, the independence of energy-point samples. The latter is the load-bearing assumption that makes the benchmark numbers interpretable, and it is not satisfied.

free parameters (4)
  • Gaussian broadening width σ = 0.1–0.2 eV
    Chosen by hand; controls the shape of the absorption spectra and thus all downstream descriptors. The ML results are not reported per σ, so its effect on accuracy is unknown.
  • Box-Cox transformation λ per feature = estimated from training data
    Each of the three descriptors is transformed with a Box-Cox λ estimated on the training split; this is a fitted preprocessing parameter that affects the feature distributions.
  • Energy grid sampling = 1,589 points over 0–10 eV
    Discretization of the continuous spectrum; the density of points determines the sample size and hence the apparent statistical power of the benchmark.
  • QNN hyperparameters = L=4 ansatz depth, d=1 feature-map repetition, learning-rate scheduler, early-stopping patience
    Ansatz depth, learning rate, patience, and other training hyperparameters are chosen by hand without a systematic sweep or sensitivity report.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption PBE DFT and LR-TDDFT (Casida) give a faithful description of the relative optical spectra of CaF2 and CaF2:Er.
    Invoked in §II.A. The spectra are not validated against experiment or converged with respect to cluster size or functional.
  • domain assumption A 24-atom cluster with 6–10 Å vacuum represents the bulk fluorite and the dilute doping limit.
    Invoked in §II.A; cluster size and vacuum thickness are not systematically converged.
  • domain assumption Each of the 1,589 energy points per system is an independent sample for ML training and testing.
    Invoked implicitly in §III.B–F; points along the same smooth absorption curve are highly correlated, so this assumption does not hold.
  • domain assumption The selected descriptors α, κ, E constitute a sufficient representation for the classification task.
    Feature selection via linear SVM weights in §II.B; no guarantee of sufficiency for the quantum models.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First-Principles Optical Descriptors and Hybrid Classical-Quantum Classification of Er-Doped CaF$_2$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BCXXYM2Z

@misc{pith2026260200525,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First-Principles Optical Descriptors and Hybrid Classical-Quantum Classification of Er-Doped CaF$_2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BCXXYM2Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.00525}
}
abstract

We present a physics-informed classical-quantum machine learning framework for discriminating pristine CaF$_2$ from Er-doped CaF$_2$ using first-principles optical descriptors. Finite Ca$_8$F$_{16}$ and Ca$_7$ErF$_{16}$ clusters were constructed from the fluorite structure (a=5.46~$\AA$) and treated using density functional theory (DFT) and linear-response time-dependent DFT (LR-TDDFT) within the GPAW code. Geometry optimization was performed in LCAO mode with a DZP basis and PBE exchange-correlation functional, followed by real-space finite-difference ground-state calculations with grid spacing h=0.30~$\AA$ and N$_{bands}$=N$_{occ}$+20. Optical excitations up to 10~eV were obtained via the Casida formalism and converted into continuous absorption spectra using Gaussian broadening ($\sigma$=0.1-0.2~eV). From 1,589 energy-resolved points per system, physically interpretable descriptors including transition energy $E$, extinction coefficient $\kappa$, and absorption coefficient $\alpha$ were extracted. A classical RBF-kernel support vector machine (SVM) achieves a test accuracy (ACC) of 0.983 and ROC-AUC of 0.999. Quantum support vector machines (QSVMs) evaluated on statevector and noisy simulators reach accuracies of 0.851 and 0.817, respectively, while execution on IBM quantum hardware yields a test-slice accuracy of 0.733 under finite-shot and decoherence constraints. A hybrid quantum neural network (QNN) with a 3-qubit feature map and depth-4 ansatz achieves a test accuracy of 0.93 and AUC of 0.96. Results here demonstrate that dopant-induced optical fingerprints form a robust, physically grounded feature space for benchmarking near-term quantum learning models against strong classical baselines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.00525 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. UMAP projection of the three selected physical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Quantum circuit diagram of the feature map [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Layout of the qubit connectivity for the 156-qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic of the parameterized TwoLocal ansatz U(θ) serving as the variational block of the QNN. The circuit consists of L = 4 repetitions of rotation layers (containing parameterized Ry and Rz gates) and entanglement layers (using all-to-all CNOT gates). This structur…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: High-level architecture of the hybrid quantum-classical neural network. The pipeline proceeds in four stages: (1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Transition energy versus oscillator strength for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Gaussian-broadened optical absorption spectra of pristine CaF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Weights assigned to each feature when training a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: ROC curves for the classical SVM, QSVM evaluated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Test and training accuracies for the classical SVM, QSVM evaluated on a statevector simulator, QSVM evaluated on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Confusion matrices for the classical SVM (top left), QSVM evaluated on a statevector simulator (top middle), QSVM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Permutation importance analysis for the classical SVM (left), QSVM evaluated on a statevector simulator (middle), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: QNN accuracy evolution over training epochs. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Training and validation loss curves for the hybrid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Auzel, Chemical reviews104, 139 (2004)

    F. Auzel, Chemical reviews104, 139 (2004)

    2004

  2. [2]

    R. W. Boyd, A. L. Gaeta, and E. Giese, inSpringer Hand- book of Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics(Springer,

  3. [3]

    D. D. K. Wayo, M. Z. B. M. Noor, M. D. Ganji, and L. Goliatt, Luminescence40, e70297 (2025)

    2025

  4. [4]

    Haase and H

    M. Haase and H. Sch¨ afer, Angewandte Chemie Interna- tional Edition50, 5808 (2011)

    2011

  5. [5]

    B. Zhou, B. Shi, D. Jin, and X. Liu, Nature nanotechnol- ogy10, 924 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    G. Chen, H. ˚Agren, T. Y. Ohulchanskyy, and P. N. Prasad, Chemical Society Reviews44, 1680 (2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

    Wang and X

    F. Wang and X. Liu, Chemical Society Reviews38, 976 (2009)

    2009

  8. [8]

    D. D. K. Wayo, L. Goliatt, and M. D. Ganji, Reviews in Chemical Engineering41, 741 (2025)

    2025

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    D. S. Sholl and J. A. Steckel,Density functional theory: a practical introduction(John Wiley & Sons, 2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    M. A. Marques, N. T. Maitra, F. M. Nogueira, E. K. Gross, and A. Rubio,Fundamentals of time-dependent density functional theory, Vol. 837 (Springer, 2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    K. T. Butler, D. W. Davies, H. Cartwright, O. Isayev, and A. Walsh, Nature559, 547 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Schmidt, M

    J. Schmidt, M. R. Marques, S. Botti, and M. A. Marques, npj computational materials5, 83 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    D. D. K. Wayo, Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering , 1 (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    Raccuglia, K

    P. Raccuglia, K. C. Elbert, P. D. Adler, C. Falk, M. B. Wenny, A. Mollo, M. Zeller, S. A. Friedler, J. Schrier, and A. J. Norquist, Nature533, 73 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Biamonte, P

    J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Nature549, 195 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Schuld and N

    M. Schuld and N. Killoran, Prx Quantum3, 030101 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Enkovaara, C

    J. Enkovaara, C. Rostgaard, J. J. Mortensen, J. Chen, M. Du lak, L. Ferrighi, J. Gavnholt, C. Glinsvad, V. Haikola, H. A. Hansen,et al., Journal of physics: Con- densed matter22, 253202 (2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

    J. J. Mortensen, L. B. Hansen, and K. W. Jacobsen, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics71, 035109 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    A. H. Larsen, J. J. Mortensen, J. Blomqvist, I. E. Castelli, R. Christensen, M. Du lak, J. Friis, M. N. Groves, B. Ham- mer, C. Hargus,et al., Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter29, 273002 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    O’Keeffe and B

    M. O’Keeffe and B. G. Hyde,Crystal structures(Courier Dover Publications, 2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    H. W. Moos, Journal of Luminescence1, 106 (1970)

    1970

  14. [22]

    Reisfeld, inHalide Glasses for Infrared Fiberoptics (Springer, 1987) pp

    R. Reisfeld, inHalide Glasses for Infrared Fiberoptics (Springer, 1987) pp. 237–252. 16

    1987

  15. [23]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Physical review letters77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  16. [24]

    M. E. Casida, inRecent Advances In Density Functional Methods: (Part I)(World Scientific, 1995) pp. 155–192

    1995

  17. [25]

    Onida, L

    G. Onida, L. Reining, and A. Rubio, Reviews of modern physics74, 601 (2002)

    2002

  18. [26]

    G. E. P. Box and D. R. Cox, Journal of the Royal Statis- tical Society: Series B (Methodological)26, 211 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Cortes and V

    C. Cortes and V. Vapnik, Machine Learning20, 273 (1995)

    1995

  20. [28]

    Chang and C.-J

    C.-C. Chang and C.-J. Lin, ACM transactions on intelli- gent systems and technology (TIST)2, 1 (2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    Rebentrost, M

    P. Rebentrost, M. Mohseni, and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 130503 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Havl ´ ıˇ cek, A

    V. Havl ´ ıˇ cek, A. D. C´ orcoles, K. Temme, A. W. Harrow, A. Kandala, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Nature 567, 209–212 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Nature Reviews Physics3, 625–644 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Benedetti, E

    M. Benedetti, E. Lloyd, S. Sack, and M. Fiorentini, Quan- tum Science and Technology4, 043001 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    S. Sim, P. D. Johnson, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Advanced Quantum Technologies2, 10.1002/qute.201900070 (2019)

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    Schuld, V

    M. Schuld, V. Bergholm, C. Gogolin, J. Izaac, and N. Kil- loran, Physical Review A99, 032331 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Farhi and H

    E. Farhi and H. Neven, arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.06002 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Goodfellow, Y

    I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, and A. Courville,Deep Learning (MIT Press, 2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    S. J. Reddi, S. Kale, and S. Kumar, inInternational Conference on Learning Representations(2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Bengio, inNeural networks: Tricks of the trade (Springer, 2012) pp

    Y. Bengio, inNeural networks: Tricks of the trade (Springer, 2012) pp. 437–478

    2012

  32. [40]

    Prechelt, inNeural Networks: Tricks of the Trade (Springer, 1998) pp

    L. Prechelt, inNeural Networks: Tricks of the Trade (Springer, 1998) pp. 55–69

    1998

  33. [41]

    J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, Nature Communications9, 10.1038/s41467- 018-07090-4 (2018)

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    A. C. Doner, H. A. Moran, A. R. Webb, M. G. Christian- son, A. L. Koritzke, N. S. Dewey, S. W. Hartness, and B. Rotavera, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer297, 108438 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    A. G. Pai, K. M. Buddhiraju, and S. S. Durbha, inRe- mote Sensing for Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Hydrology XXIV, Vol. 12262, edited by C. M. U. Neale and A. Mal- tese, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE,

  36. [44]

    Stoyanova, T

    A. Stoyanova, T. Hammadia, A. Ricou, and B. Penkovsky, Photonic quantum computing for polymer classification (2022), arXiv:2211.12207 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A. S. Bhatia, M. K. Saggi, and S. Kais, Journal of Chem- ical Information and Modeling63, 6476 (2023), pMID: 37603536

    2023

  38. [46]

    Hirai, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17935 (2023)

    H. Hirai, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17935 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Juno Ryu, E

    E. Juno Ryu, E. Abo, and K. June-Koo, Materials (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    C. Long, M. Huang, X. Ye, Y. Futamura, and T. Sakurai, Scientific Reports15, 31780 (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    J. Wu, Z. Tao, and Q. Li, in2022 IEEE International Con- ference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, 2022) pp. 38–48

    2022

  42. [50]

    Rodriguez-Grasa, Y

    P. Rodriguez-Grasa, Y. Ban, and M. Sanz, Physical Re- view Research7, 023269 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    Xia and S

    R. Xia and S. Kais, Entropy22, 828 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Correll, S

    R. Correll, S. J. Weinberg, F. Sanches, T. Ide, and T. Suzuki, Advanced Quantum Technologies6, 2200183 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    L. C. Sander, N. A. McMahon, P. Zapletal, and M. J. Hartmann, Physical Review Research7, L042032 (2025)

    2025

  46. [54]

    Gupta, D

    S. Gupta, D. Konar, and V. Aggarwal, A scalable quantum non-local neural network for image classification (2024), arXiv:2407.18906

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Tacchino, C

    F. Tacchino, C. Macchiavello, D. Gerace, and D. Bajoni, npj Quantum Information5, 1 (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    M. E. Sahin, E. Altamura, O. Wallis, S. P. Wood, A. Dekusar, D. A. Millar, T. Imamichi, A. Matsuo, and S. Mensa, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.17756 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.