Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Quantum classifier with tailored quantum kernel

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A swap test turns weighted power sums of quantum fidelity into one two-qubit measurement

desk verdict A correct swap-test fidelity classifier with clean math and a genuine no-postselection measurement, but the validation is circular and the resource claims need tempering; still worthy of a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02611 v2 pith:DKWGH5HV submitted 2019-09-05 quant-ph

Carsten Blank , Daniel K. Park , June-Koo Kevin Rhee , Francesco Petruccione This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumclassifierkernelstatefidelityswaptestHelstrommeasurementforkingmethodssupervisedlearning
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

This paper proposes a distance-based quantum classifier whose similarity measure is the quantum-state fidelity raised to an arbitrary power and weighted per training sample. The central claim is that a swap test on an entangled input state, followed by a single two-qubit expectation measurement, evaluates $\sum_{m=1}^M (-1)^{y_m} w_m |\langle\tilde{x}|x_m\rangle|^{2n}$ with a constant number of repetitions independent of $M$. This matters because the earlier interference-based classifier uses only $\mathrm{Re}\langle\tilde{x}|x_m\rangle$, which vanishes for arbitrary quantum states and for rich feature maps, whereas fidelity works for any state. If the claim is right, kernel-based quantum machine learning gains a simple, tailorable kernel that is also equivalent to measuring a Helstrom operator, linking classification to optimal state discrimination.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the swap test acting on $n$ copies of the test datum and each training datum in an entangled superposition, with the label stored on a separate qubit. The identity $\operatorname{tr}(|\psi_{n\pm}\rangle\langle\psi_{n\pm}|)=2\pm 2|\langle\tilde{x}|x_m\rangle|^{2n}$ converts the ancilla-label correlation into the kernel value, and the cancellation of cross-terms makes the result robust to dephasing on index and label registers. For product-state inputs, controlled-swap 'quantum forking' operations create the required index-labeled entanglement, and the paper counts the resulting Toffoli and CNOT overhead, giving $n(M+2)\lceil\log_2 N\rceil + 2\lceil\log_2 M\rceil + M + 1$ qubits total.

What would settle it

On the explicit example where both training states have purely imaginary inner products with the test state, the Hadamard classifier returns exactly zero for every $\theta$ while Eq. (9) predicts $\langle\sigma_z^{(a)}\sigma_z^{(l)}\rangle = w_1\sin^2(\theta/2+\pi/4) - w_2\cos^2(\theta/2+\pi/4)$. Running the swap-test circuit for this example and comparing the measured expectation to this curve over $\theta \in [0,2\pi]$ would settle the central claim: agreement to within noise supports it, and a persistent sign error or null result for any $\theta$ refutes it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The load-bearing discovery is Eq. (9): for the state $\sum_m \sqrt{w_m}|0\rangle|\tilde{x}\rangle^{\otimes n}|x_m\rangle^{\otimes n}|y_m\rangle|m\rangle$, the swap-test circuit produces $\sum_m \sqrt{w_m}(|0\rangle|\psi_{n+}\rangle + |1\rangle|\psi_{n-}\rangle)|y_m\rangle|m\rangle$, and the expectation $\langle\sigma_z^{(a)}\sigma_z^{(l)}\rangle$ equals the weighted power-sum of fidelities. The label is assigned by the sign of that expectation. Unlike the Hadamard classifier, no post-selection or data preprocessing is needed, and with $n$ copies the kernel becomes $|\langle\tilde{x}|x_m\rangle|^{2n}$, sharpening to a Dirac delta as $n\to\infty$. A product-state variant uses quantum forking to prepare the required entanglement without prior knowledge of the data, at the cost of extra qubits. The same expectation value is shown to be the expectation of a Helstrom operator, so the protocol measures the Helstrom operator without knowing the target states.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol assumes that the entangled input state $\sum_m \sqrt{w_m}|0\rangle|\tilde{x}\rangle^{\otimes n}|x_m\rangle^{\otimes n}|y_m\rangle|m\rangle$ can be prepared cheaply; for the product-state version, that means many qubits with all-to-all connectivity, which the paper itself acknowledges.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the kernel uses full fidelity, it classifies arbitrary quantum states, including states produced by quantum feature maps for which the real part of the overlap is insufficient.
  • All measurement shots contribute to the classification, so the number of experimental repetitions stays constant in the number of training samples.
  • Increasing $n$ sharpens the decision boundary; in the limit $n\to\infty$ the classifier labels a test point by counting exact matches among training data.
  • The equivalence to a Helstrom operator means the classifier can be interpreted as optimal quantum state discrimination and may inherit its error trade-offs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One consequence the authors leave implicit: if estimating fidelity kernels of certain quantum feature maps is classically hard, this swap-test circuit provides a direct way to evaluate such kernels, potentially giving a practical quantum advantage in kernel-based learning.
  • Because the decision rule uses only the sign and the effect of non-commuting Pauli errors is just a multiplicative reduction $(1-2p)$, modest device noise may be tolerable without full error correction; this is an extrapolation from their robustness analysis.
  • The forking construction suggests the method can be applied when training data are supplied as an unknown quantum state stream, not just as classically pre-computed data, since the circuit does not need to know the data beforehand.
  • A natural testable extension is to generalize the two-class sign rule to multi-class or regression settings by estimating several Helstrom-type observables; the paper does not develop this.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a distance-based quantum binary classifier whose kernel is the weighted power sum of quantum state fidelities between training and test data. The core construction is a swap-test circuit applied to a specially entangled input state, followed by measurement of the two-qubit observable sigma_z^(a) sigma_z^(l). The authors show that this measurement yields the weighted fidelity sum without postselection, generalize the kernel to arbitrary weights and integer powers n, and give a quantum-forking construction to prepare the input state from a product-state data register. They also show that the kernel evaluation is equivalent to measuring the expectation value of a Helstrom operator. The paper includes a proof-of-principle demonstration on a toy example using the IBM Q Ourense device and noise-model simulations, reporting qualitative agreement with theory.

Significance. If the central derivation is correct, the paper contributes a clean and systematic method for realizing fidelity-based quantum kernels with tunable weights and powers, with a no-postselection two-qubit readout that improves on the earlier Hadamard classifier of Schuld et al. The Helstrom-operator connection (Eqs. (16)-(17)) is a valuable conceptual observation. The algebra in Eqs. (8)-(9) is self-contained and free of fitted parameters, which strengthens the theoretical part. However, the practical significance is limited by the cost and connectivity requirements of the state-preparation step, and the experimental validation does not provide an independent test of the classification claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Experimental and Simulation Results, Eq. (11) and Supplementary Eq. (S4)] The 'true' label function c(x) in Eq. (11) is defined as sign(w1 |<x|x1>|^q - w2 |<x|x2>|^q), which is exactly the quantity the swap-test classifier estimates. The reported agreement between theory, simulation, and experiment is therefore partly by construction: the experiment demonstrates that the circuit evaluates the intended fidelity sum, but it does not validate the classifier against an independent ground-truth labeling. The claim that the classifier 'predicts the correct class for most of the input' should be reformulated as a statement that the circuit reproduces its own kernel definition, or the example should be replaced with one where the labels come from an external source.
  2. [Kernel construction from a product state, gate-count paragraph] The resource counts for the quantum-forking construction assume arbitrary all-to-all connectivity between the control and target qubits of the multi-controlled swap operations. On any fixed device topology, these long-range controlled swaps require additional routing SWAPs, ancilla qubits, and decompositions that are not included in the stated Toffoli and CNOT counts. The paper itself concedes in the Discussion that the approach requires 'many qubits which must be able to interact with each other.' Consequently, the abstract's claim of 'a constant number of repetitions regardless of the number of data' applies only to the final measurement stage, not to the full protocol, whose qubit count and gate count grow with M and N.
  3. [Fig. 5 and Experimental Results] The experimental results are presented without error bars or confidence intervals, and the sentence reporting 'about 97% of the points sampled' does not specify the number of points, the statistical uncertainty, or the classification threshold applied. The known fitted deviations (amplitude factor ~0.65 and phase shift ~2 degrees) are not propagated into the accuracy statement. A comparison with the Hadamard classifier on the same data, or with a classical classifier using the same fidelity kernel, would be necessary to substantiate the claimed advantage of the fidelity-based kernel.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Methods] The text states that each experiment is executed with 8129 shots, but the expectation-value formula immediately below uses 1/8192; these numbers should be reconciled.
  2. [Eq. (15)] The notation c-swap(l,ym|m) and c-swap(d,xm|m) is introduced inline; a brief definition before Eq. (15) would improve readability.
  3. [Discussion] The reference to 'Sergoli et al.' should be spelled 'Sergioli et al.' to match the bibliography.
  4. [Supplementary Note I] The argument for p0 - p1 -> 0 under standardization relies on the assumption that inner products of standardized Gaussian vectors behave like products of independent Gaussians; this is a heuristic and should be labeled as such rather than presented as a proof.
  5. [Eq. (13) and following text] The sentence 'the Hadamard classifier cannot find the new label y' should refer to 'the new label \tilde{y}' for consistency with the surrounding notation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Central swap-test identity is self-contained; the toy-problem validation is tautological because the label function is defined by the same fidelity comparison.

  1. self definitional [Eq. (11) and surrounding text; Supplementary Eq. (S4)]
    "c(x) = 1/2 (1− sgn (|⟨ x|x1⟩|q−|⟨ x|x2⟩|q)), q= 2. ... Since the classification relies on the distance between the training and test data in the quantum feature space, we also choose c as to compare the distance between the test datum and training data of each class. ... Thus the swap-test classifier outputs ˜y that coincides with c(˜x(θ))∀θ."

    For M=2 and w1=w2, the classifier expectation in Eq. (9) is (|⟨x~|x1⟩|^2 − |⟨x~|x2⟩|^2)/2, and Eq. (7) labels by its sign. The 'true' label c in Eq. (11) is defined as sign(|⟨x|x1⟩|^q − |⟨x|x2⟩|^q) with q=2 — the same weighted fidelity comparison. Supplementary Eq. (S4) states c(x)=1/2(1−sgn(w1D(x,x1)−w2D(x,x2))) and says 'the true label function c is defined in our case with the state fidelity as similarity measure.' Agreement between classifier output and c is therefore true by construction; the reported ~97% experimental 'correct class' rate is not an independent test.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation does not contain fitted parameters or hidden reuse of its conclusion. Equation (8) defines the input state and Eq. (9) evaluates tr(σ_z^a σ_z^l |Ψ_f^s⟩⟨Ψ_f^s|) by the explicit trace identity tr(|ψ_n±⟩⟨ψ_n±|)=2±2|⟨x~|x_m⟩|^{2n}; this is a direct calculation, not a circular inference. Equations (16)–(17) merely exhibit a Hermitian operator whose expectation equals the same weighted fidelity sum, which is an identity rather than a derivation of the conclusion from itself. The quantum-forking preparation cites the authors' own Refs. [12,13], but Eq. (15), the junk-state argument, and the gate counts are all specified in the text, so that self-citation is not load-bearing. The circularity is confined to the validation example: the ground-truth label c in Eq. (11) and Supplementary Eq. (S4) is deliberately chosen to be sign(w1D(x,x1)−w2D(x,x2)) with D equal to the state fidelity, and the classifier's decision rule Eq. (7) together with Eq. (9) evaluates exactly that sign for M=2 and w1=w2. Hence the agreement between the classifier output and c, including the claimed ~97% experimental success rate, is guaranteed by construction and does not independently establish classification performance. Because the mathematical core stands on its own and no fitted input is relabeled as a prediction, the overall circularity is modest.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation relies on standard quantum mechanical identities and a state preparation oracle. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are tunable kernel hyperparameters and noise-characterization fits, not fitted constants that make the derivation work.

free parameters (3)
  • Kernel weights w_m = w_1 = w_2 = 1/2 in all experiments
    User-tunable weights in the kernel sum (Eqs. 1 and 9); equal weights are chosen for demonstrations, not fitted to make the algorithm work.
  • Kernel exponent n (number of copies) = n = 1 in experiments; n = 1, 10, 100 in Fig. 3
    Hyperparameter controlling the power of the fidelity kernel; selected by hand to demonstrate polynomial sharpening, not fitted to data.
  • Noise characterization parameters a, theta_shift, w2 = Experiment: a ~ 0.6515, theta_shift ~ 2/51 pi, w2 ~ 0.5414; simulation: a ~ 0.8213, theta_shift ~ -9/104329 pi, w2 ~…
    Fitted only to quantify amplitude reduction and phase shift of the noise model versus experiment; they do not enter the classification algorithm.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Quantum mechanical swap-test and fidelity identity tr(|psi_n±><psi_n±|) = 2 ± 2|<x~|x_m>|^{2n}
    Elementary linear algebra used in Eqs. (8)-(9).
  • domain assumption All training and test data states are normalized (unit length)
    Required for the state representations |x_m> and |x~> with unit length, stated after Eq. (1).
  • domain assumption Ability to prepare the specific entangled input state via U_s(D) or via quantum forking with controlled swaps between arbitrary qubits
    The classifier's resource claims assume a state preparation oracle; for the product-state version, all-to-all connectivity between data, label, and index qubits is required, acknowledged in the Discussion.
  • domain assumption Decision rule sign(<sigma_z^a sigma_z^l>) maps to class labels 0 and 1
    Eq. (7) defines the classifier output as the sign of the measured expectation value; this assumes the label encoding y_m in {0,1} and weights summing to 1.
  • domain assumption Effective Pauli noise rate p on ancilla/label qubits is below 1/2
    The robustness argument in the Results states that non-commuting Pauli errors scale the expectation by (1-2p), and sign is preserved only for p < 1/2; this bounds the noise regime for the constant-repetition claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum classifier with tailored quantum kernel." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DKWGH5HV

@misc{pith2026190902611,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum classifier with tailored quantum kernel},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DKWGH5HV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02611}
}
read the original abstract

Kernel methods have a wide spectrum of applications in machine learning. Recently, a link between quantum computing and kernel theory has been formally established, opening up opportunities for quantum techniques to enhance various existing machine learning methods. We present a distance-based quantum classifier whose kernel is based on the quantum state fidelity between training and test data. The quantum kernel can be tailored systematically with a quantum circuit to raise the kernel to an arbitrary power and to assign arbitrary weights to each training data. Given a specific input state, our protocol calculates the weighted power sum of fidelities of quantum data in quantum parallel via a swap-test circuit followed by two single-qubit measurements, requiring only a constant number of repetitions regardless of the number of data. We also show that our classifier is equivalent to measuring the expectation value of a Helstrom operator, from which the well-known optimal quantum state discrimination can be derived. We demonstrate the proof-of-principle via classical simulations with a realistic noise model and experiments using the IBM quantum computer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02611 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The Hadamard classifier. The first register is the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Theoretical results of the swap-test classifier for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. The swap-test classifier with quantum forking for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Classification of the toy problem outlined in Eqs. (11) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The circuit implementing the swap-test classifier on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantum Machine Learning: What Quan- tum Computing Means to Data Mining (Academic Press, Boston, 2014)

    Wittek, P. Quantum Machine Learning: What Quan- tum Computing Means to Data Mining (Academic Press, Boston, 2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    & Petruccione, F

    Schuld, M., Sinayskiy, I. & Petruccione, F. An introduction to quantum machine learning. Con- temporary Physics 56, 172–185 (2015). URL https://doi.org/10.1080/00107514.2014.964942. https://doi.org/10.1080/00107514.2014.964942

    arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    Biamonte, J. et al. Quantum machine learning. Nature 549, 195 EP – (2017). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ nature23474

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    & Petruccione, F

    Schuld, M. & Petruccione, F. Supervised Learning with Quantum Computers . Quantum Science and Technology (Springer International Publishing, 2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    & Briegel, H

    Dunjko, V. & Briegel, H. J. Machine learning & ar- tificial intelligence in the quantum domain: a review of recent progress. Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 074001 (2018). URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1361- 6633%2Faab406

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    The kernel trick for distances

    Sch¨ olkopf, B. The kernel trick for distances. In Pro- ceedings of the 13th International Conference on Neu- ral Information Processing Systems , NIPS’00, 283–289 9 (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000). URL http: //dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3008751.3008793

    work page arXiv 2000

  7. [7]

    & Smola, A

    Hofmann, T., Schlkopf, B. & Smola, A. J. Kernel methods in machine learning. Ann. Statist. 36, 1171–1220 (2008). URL https://doi.org/10.1214/009053607000000677

    doi:10.1214/009053607000000677 2008

  8. [8]

    & Killoran, N

    Schuld, M. & Killoran, N. Quantum machine learn- ing in feature Hilbert spaces. Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 040504 (2019). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.122.040504

    work page 2019

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Supervised learning with quantum- enhanced feature spaces

    Havl´ ıcek, V.et al. Supervised learning with quantum- enhanced feature spaces. Nature 567, 209–212 (2019). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-0980-2

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    & Petruccione, F

    Schuld, M., Fingerhuth, M. & Petruccione, F. Imple- menting a distance-based classifier with a quantum in- terference circuit. EPL (Europhysics Letters) 119, 60002 (2017). URL http://stacks.iop.org/0295-5075/119/i= 6/a=60002

    2017

  3. [11]

    & de Wolf, R

    Buhrman, H., Cleve, R., Watrous, J. & de Wolf, R. Quantum fingerprinting. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 167902 (2001). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.87.167902

    2001

  4. [12]

    K., Petruccione, F

    Park, D. K., Petruccione, F. & Rhee, J.-K. K. Circuit- based quantum random access memory for classical data. Scientific Reports 9, 3949 (2019). URL https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41598-019-40439-3

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    K., Sinayskiy, I., Fingerhuth, M., Petruccione, F

    Park, D. K., Sinayskiy, I., Fingerhuth, M., Petruccione, F. & Rhee, J.-K. K. Parallel quantum trajectories via forking for sampling without redundancy. New Journal of Physics 21, 083024 (2019). URL https://doi.org/ 10.1088%2F1367-2630%2Fab35fb

    2019

  6. [14]

    Helstrom, C. W. Quantum detection and estimation the- ory. Journal of Statistical Physics 1, 231–252 (1969). URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01007479

    1969 doi

  7. [15]

    IBM Q 5 Ourense back- end specification v1.0.1 (2019)

    5-qubit backend: IBM Q team. IBM Q 5 Ourense back- end specification v1.0.1 (2019). URL https://quantum- computing.ibm.com. Retrieved from https://quantum- computing.ibm.com. Last accessed 2019-12-09

    2019

  8. [16]

    & Lloyd, S

    Rebentrost, P., Mohseni, M. & Lloyd, S. Quantum sup- port vector machine for big data classification. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 130503 (2014). URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.130503

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    & Freytes, H

    Sergioli, G., Giuntini, R. & Freytes, H. A new quantum approach to binary classification. PLOS ONE 14, 1–14 (2019). URL https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0216224

    2019

  10. [18]

    & Martinez, T

    Ventura, D. & Martinez, T. Quantum Associative Mem- ory. Information Sciences 124, 273–296 (2000). URL https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-0255(99)00101-2

    2000 doi

  11. [19]

    & Sun, Y

    Long, G.-L. & Sun, Y. Efficient scheme for initializing a quantum register with an arbitrary superposed state. Phys. Rev. A 64, 014303 (2001). URL https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.64.014303

    2001 doi

  12. [20]

    & Rudolph, T

    Grover, L. & Rudolph, T. Creating superpositions that correspond to efficiently integrable probability distribu- tions. ArXiv e-prints quant–ph/0208112 (2002). quant- ph/0208112

    2002

  13. [21]

    & Mosca, M

    Kaye, P. & Mosca, M. Quantum Networks for Gener- ating Arbitrary Quantum States. ArXiv e-prints quant– ph/0407102 (2004). quant-ph/0407102

    2004

  14. [22]

    J., Bergholm, V

    M¨ ott¨ onen, M., Vartiainen, J. J., Bergholm, V. & Salo- maa, M. M. Transformation of quantum states using uni- formly controlled rotations. Quantum Info. Comput. 5, 467–473 (2005)

    2005

  15. [23]

    Soklakov, A. N. & Schack, R. Efficient state prepara- tion for a register of quantum bits. Phys. Rev. A 73, 012307 (2006). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.73.012307

    2006

  16. [24]

    & Brukner, ˇC

    Plesch, M. & Brukner, ˇC. Quantum-state preparation with universal gate decompositions. Phys. Rev. A 83, 032302 (2011). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.83.032302

    2011

  17. [25]

    & Chris- tandl, M

    Iten, R., Colbeck, R., Kukuljan, I., Home, J. & Chris- tandl, M. Quantum circuits for isometries. Physical Re- view A 93, 032318 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Sieberer, L. M. & Lechner, W. Programmable su- perpositions of Ising configurations. Phys. Rev. A 97, 052329 (2018). URL https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevA.97.052329

    2018

  19. [27]

    & Maccone, L

    Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S. & Maccone, L. Quan- tum random access memory. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 160501 (2008). URL https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.100.160501

    2008

  20. [28]

    & Maccone, L

    Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S. & Maccone, L. Architec- tures for a quantum random access memory. Phys. Rev. A 78, 052310 (2008). URL https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevA.78.052310

    2008

  21. [29]

    & Wu, L.-n

    Hong, F.-Y., Xiang, Y., Zhu, Z.-Y., Jiang, L.-z. & Wu, L.-n. Robust quantum random access memory. Phys. Rev. A 86, 010306 (2012). URL https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevA.86.010306

    2012

  22. [30]

    Nielsen, M. A. & Chuang, I. L. Quantum Computa- tion and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edi- tion, 10th ed. (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    Arute, F. et al. Quantum supremacy using a pro- grammable superconducting processor. Nature 574, 505– 510 (2019). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019- 1666-5

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Write, K. et al. Benchmarking an 11-qubit quantum com- puter. Nature Communications 10, 5464 (2019). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13534-2

    2019 doi

  25. [35]

    & Gambetta, J

    Temme, K., Bravyi, S. & Gambetta, J. M. Error mitiga- tion for short-depth quantum circuits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180509 (2017). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.180509

    2017 doi

  26. [36]

    Endo, S., Benjamin, S. C. & Li, Y. Practical quantum error mitigation for near-future applications. Phys. Rev. X 8, 031027 (2018). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevX.8.031027

    2018 doi

  27. [37]

    & Park, D

    Blank, C. & Park, D. K. Quantum classifier with tailored quantum kernels - supplemental, GitHub reposi- tory URL https://github.com/carstenblank/Quantum- classifier-with-tailored-quantum-kernels--- Supplemental (2019) 10 Supplementary Information: Quantum classifier with tailore...

    2019

  28. [38]

    & Petruccione, F

    Schuld, M., Fingerhuth, M. & Petruccione, F. Implementing a distance-based classifier with a quantum interference circuit. EPL (Europhysics Letters) 119, 60002 (2017). URL http://stacks.iop.org/0295-5075/119/i=6/a=60002

    2017

  29. [39]

    Nielsen, M. A. & Chuang, I. L. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2011), 10th edn

    2011

  30. [40]

    Abraham, H. et al. Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing (2019)

    2019

  31. [41]

    & Park, D

    Blank, C. & Park, D. Quantum classifier with tailored quantum kernels - supplemental.https://github.com/carstenblank/ Quantum-classifier-with-tailored-quantum-kernels---Supplemental (2019)

    2019

  32. [42]

    IBM Quantum Experience Web Site

    IBM Q Team, IBM Inc. IBM Quantum Experience Web Site. https://quantum-computing.ibm.com/ (2019). [Online; accessed 12-December-2019]

    2019

  33. [43]

    Qiskit Documentation

    IBM Q Team, IBM Inc. Qiskit Documentation. https://github.com/Qiskit/qiskit/docs (2019). [Online; accessed 22-June-2019; commit cc4fbb724d886e1449ca23beaa2d1c97cf1a7681]

    2019

  34. [44]

    J., Biamonte, J

    Wood, C. J., Biamonte, J. D. & Cory, D. G. Tensor networks and graphical calculus for open quantum systems. Quant. Inf. Comp. 15, –08117590 (2015). URL http://www.rintonpress.com/xxqic15/qic-15-910/0759-0811.pdf

    2015

  35. [45]

    Dask: Library for dynamic task scheduling (2016)

    Dask Development Team. Dask: Library for dynamic task scheduling (2016). URL https://dask.org

    2016

  36. [46]

    Sarovar, M. et al. Detecting crosstalk errors in quantum information processors (2019). arXiv:1908.09855

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.