Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Solving graph problems using permutation-invariant quantum machine learning

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · 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 built to be invariant under all reorderings of its input qubits learns global graph properties—connectedness, bipartiteness, Hamiltonian path, and Hamiltonian cycle—dramatically…

desk verdict The symmetry-advantage claim is plausible and the free-parameter baseline is a good control, but the unspecified readout observable and missing test-set discipline keep the paper from being verifiable as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12764 v2 pith:GZGKYOHB submitted 2025-05-19 quant-ph

Maximilian Balthasar Mansky , Tobias Rohe , Gerhard Stenzel , Alejandro Bravo de la Serna , Santiago Londoño Castillo , Gautham Sathish , Dimitra Nikolaidou , Dmytro Bondarenko
show 2 more authors
Linus Menzel Claudia Linnhoff-Popien
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords quantummachinelearningsymmetrydiscretegraphproblemspermutationinvarianceHamiltonianpathcyclebipartiteness
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 encoding a problem's symmetry directly into a parameterized quantum circuit—specifically, making the circuit permutation-invariant for graph classification—dramatically improves learning performance compared with standard ansatzes. It tests this on four global graph properties on random eight-node graphs, using graph states as inputs. The permutation-invariant circuit converges in a few epochs and reaches the highest validation accuracy in all four tasks. Even a partial symmetry, cyclic invariance, still gives a significant gain over unsymmetrized circuits.

What carries the argument

The central object is the symmetrized Pauli-string generator: take a local rotation or a $ZZ$ coupling, sum it over all permutations of qubits, and exponentiate to obtain a circuit block with a single shared parameter. Because the summed generators lie in a maximally abelian subtorus when each Pauli string uses only two of the three Pauli matrices, the exponential of the sum factors into a product of commuting exponentials, giving a direct circuit construction. Repeating these blocks builds a permutation-invariant ansatz; replacing the full symmetric group by cyclic shifts gives a cheaper cyclic-invariant ansatz; keeping the same gate layout but freeing all parameters isolates the effect of shared versus independent parameters.

What would settle it

A direct experiment that would settle the claim: grant the standard strongly-entangling ansatz the same number of parameters but many more epochs and per-ansatz hyperparameter search on the same four datasets; if it matches or exceeds the permutation-invariant accuracy, the reported advantage is a training-budget artifact rather than a symmetry effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a parameterized quantum circuit whose gate parameters are shared according to the full permutation group $S_n$ cannot distinguish between isomorphic graph states, and that this built-in invariance is exactly what graph classification needs. Because global properties like connectedness are unchanged by relabeling nodes, an ansatz restricted to the permutation-invariant subspace has a drastically smaller effective search space: for eight qubits, 2,147,483,648 labeled graphs collapse to 1,044 unlabeled isomorphism classes. The paper reports that in all tested cases the permutation-invariant ansatz captures the problem structure well, converges extremely fast—often within a few epochs—and outperforms the cyclic-invariant, free-parameter, and standard strongly-entangling ansatzes. Even cyclic symmetry, which is easier to wire on limited-connectivity hardware, provides significantly better results than no symmetry. The authors note that the advantage likely combines structural approximation of the problem with a reduction in the parameter search space, and they do not claim to know which dominates.

Load-bearing premise

The whole comparison rests on the assumption that the fixed training protocol—100 graphs per epoch, equal epoch counts, the same optimizer settings, and no per-ansatz tuning—does not systematically handicap the generic ansatzes; the graph sampling and balancing parameters behind the datasets are not disclosed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On all four tested properties—connectedness, bipartiteness, Hamiltonian path, and Hamiltonian cycle—the permutation-invariant ansatz reaches the best validation accuracy, often within a few epochs of 100 training graphs each.
  • The shared-parameter permutation-invariant structure, not merely the layered circuit layout, drives the gain: the same layout with free parameters performs like the standard ansatz.
  • Cyclic symmetry, which is far cheaper to implement on hardware with limited connectivity, still yields a significant improvement over unsymmetrized ansatzes.
  • The permutation-invariant circuit learns a rule richer than edge counting; it beats the natural one-dimensional edge-count classifier for connectedness.
  • Because the construction is explicit—symmetrize, factor via commutativity, exponentiate—the approach transfers to other discrete symmetry groups and to other problems with global symmetry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: The reported advantage should be testable as a scaling law: on $n$-node graphs the ratio of unlabeled to labeled graphs falls quickly, so if search-space reduction is the main driver, the symmetry gain should shrink or plateau as $n$ grows; a study at $n=9$ and $n=10$ would separate that mechanism from pure architectural fit.
  • Extension: A natural comparison is against a classical graph neural network or another equivariant classical model on the same four tasks; if the classical equivariant model also learns in a few epochs, the lesson is about symmetry in learning rather than quantum specifics.
  • Extension: The method only helps when the label symmetry is the relevant symmetry; for node-specific questions such as reachability between two named nodes, full permutation invariance would actively erase the required information, so the paper's scope is global properties.
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 the use of permutation-invariant quantum circuits for graph classification on 8-qubit graph states, addressing four decision problems: connectedness, bipartiteness, Hamiltonian cycle, and Hamiltonian path. After reviewing Lie-group and Lie-algebra background, it constructs symmetrized gate families (permutation-invariant, cyclic-invariant) and compares them with a free-parameter version and a standard strongly entangling ansatz. The central claim is that matching the circuit symmetry to the problem symmetry produces 'vastly' faster convergence and higher validation accuracy, and that even an approximate (cyclic) symmetry yields significant gains. The evidence consists of validation-set learning curves in Table II, without numeric accuracies, a separate test set, dataset-generation details, or a specification of the readout observable.

Significance. If the reported advantage is real and reproducible, the paper would be a clean empirical demonstration that hard-coding problem symmetry into a QML ansatz reduces iteration and sample complexity for graph classification. The constructive method is a direct application of established group-invariant QML theory, and the authors are transparent that part of the gain stems from the circuit's inability to distinguish isomorphic graphs. However, the evidence base is currently too thin: there is no separate test set, no dataset-generation or balancing specification, no statement of the readout observable, and no reproducibility artifacts. The central mechanism—that the learned decision function is permutation-invariant—is not verified, which prevents endorsement of the strong performance claim in its present form.

major comments (4)
  1. [§VIII (Discussion), Table II] The decision function of the trained model is never specified. For a unitary U(θ) satisfying Uπ = πU, the output for a permuted input πρπ† is F(πρπ†) = Tr[UρU† π†Oπ], so the model is permutation-invariant only if the readout observable O is also invariant, e.g., O = Σ_i Z_i. The paper states in §VIII that the circuit 'return[s] the same result for any order of graph state inputs' but does not give O. If the implementation measured a single-qubit Pauli operator, the claimed symmetry of the decision function does not hold, and the experimental comparison would not test the stated mechanism. Please specify O explicitly and, ideally, verify invariance empirically.
  2. [§VII (Results)] The experimental setup is insufficiently specified to support the central claim. The 'balanced dataset of 3000 graphs' is described without stating the graph sampling model (e.g., Erdős–Rényi edge probability or a rejection-sampling procedure used to balance the classes), so it is unclear whether the four problems are equally hard or whether the datasets are representative. The text calls the 2900-graph remainder a 'validation set,' but there is no separate test set; Table II therefore reports validation performance without a final hold-out evaluation. In addition, the number of seeds used for the 95% error bars is not given.
  3. [§VII (Results)] The quantitative comparison of labeled vs. unlabeled graphs is numerically wrong. For 8 vertices there are 2^(8·7/2) = 268,435,456 labeled graphs, not 2,147,483,648, and the number of unlabeled graphs on 8 vertices (OEIS A000088) is 12,346, not 1,044 (1,044 is the count for 7 vertices). Correcting these numbers weakens, but does not eliminate, the claimed reduction in effective input count; please recompute and rephrase the argument.
  4. [VI–VII (Experiments, Results)] The ansatz comparison is not shown to be controlled. The four circuits have different parameter counts (120, 132, 108, and 120 per the text), and no information is given about learning rate, optimizer settings, or whether the same quantum natural gradient configuration was used for all circuits. Since the conclusion is a performance ordering, the manuscript should state common hyperparameters, report per-seed results, and either include a small hyperparameter search or state explicitly that none was performed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (15)] The label 'HC:' for the Hamiltonian path definition should be 'HP:' to avoid confusion with the Hamiltonian cycle definition.
  2. [§VII (Results)] The description of the training/validation split is ambiguous: 'split into a training and a test set. The training set contains only 100 graphs per epoch, with the remaining 2900 graphs forming the validation set.' Please clarify the actual number of distinct training graphs and the role of the 2900 graphs.
  3. [Table I / §VI] The parameter counts for the free-parameter and standard ansatzes are stated without derivation; a short explanation of how the layer repetitions lead to 132 and 108 parameters would help the reader verify the claimed 'approximately equal' count.
  4. [Reference [42]] Reference [42] is cited as 'Total number of nodes in all labeled graphs on n nodes' but is used for the number of labeled graphs; please verify the correct OEIS entry and title.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the permutation-invariant ansatz is explicitly constructed and benchmarked against held-out data; remaining concerns are reproducibility gaps, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: a permutation-invariant ansatz, explicitly built from the symmetrized generators of Eqs. (13a-c), classifies four permutation-invariant graph properties better than non-symmetric or partially symmetric ansatzes on a held-out validation set. No parameter is fitted to the validation set, and the same circuit architecture is used for all four tasks, so the ansatz is not defined in terms of any particular target property. The prior-work citations, including the authors' own [33]-[35], are contextual rather than load-bearing: the construction is reproduced self-contained through Theorem IV.1 using the BCH formula, and the circuit choice is attributed to external 'popular choice' references [31], [46], [48]. The acknowledged reduction from 2^28 labeled graphs to 1044 unlabeled graphs is an explicit mechanistic consequence of invariance, not a hidden fit, and the paper strengthens its claim by comparing against edge-count accuracy as an external baseline. The reviewer's concern that permutation invariance of the decision function is not established because the readout observable is unspecified is a rigor and reproducibility gap, not a circular dependency: no equation can be exhibited in which a prediction equals its input by construction. Section VII's admission that part of the advantage stems from the reduced search space, and Section VIII's statement that it is not clear which explanation is correct, are honest limitations that further indicate the authors are not presenting a forced derivation. No circular step is identified.

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

The central claim is an empirical performance comparison. It depends on the correctness of the prior permutation-invariant circuit construction [34], on the graph encoding, and on the unstated experimental setup (dataset generation, optimizer settings, parameter equalization). No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Target parameter count = 120
    The paper equalizes parameter counts across ansatzes at approximately 120 parameters (Section VI). This choice affects the comparison and is not varied.
  • Graph sampling and balancing parameters = Not stated
    The random graph datasets are described as balanced but the edge probability distribution and balancing procedure are not specified (Section VI). The results depend on these choices.
  • Quantum natural gradient hyperparameters = Not stated
    The optimizer settings (learning rate, damping, etc.) are not reported, and the same settings are presumably used for all ansatzes (Section VII). This affects fairness.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The symmetrized generator construction from [34] yields a valid permutation-invariant quantum circuit.
    The paper uses the permutation-invariant circuit from prior work without re-deriving it (Section V). If the construction were flawed, the comparisons would be invalid.
  • standard math Graph states in Eq. (16) faithfully encode the graph while preserving the permutation action on qubits.
    The encoding is a standard graph state construction, but it is the interface between the graph and the circuit.
  • domain assumption The four graph properties are invariant under node permutation.
    This is a known fact stated in Section VI and is the motivation for the ansatz choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Solving graph problems using permutation-invariant quantum machine learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GZGKYOHB

@misc{pith2026250512764,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Solving graph problems using permutation-invariant quantum machine learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GZGKYOHB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12764}
}
read the original abstract

Many computational problems are unchanged under some symmetry operation. In classical machine learning, this can be reflected with the layer structure of the neural network. In quantum machine learning, the ansatz can be tuned to correspond to the specific symmetry of the problem. We investigate this adaption of the quantum circuit to the problem symmetry on graph classification problems. On random graphs, the quantum machine learning ansatz classifies whether a given random graph is connected, bipartite, contains a Hamiltonian path or cycle, respectively. We find that if the quantum circuit reflects the inherent symmetry of the problem, it vastly outperforms the standard, unsymmetrized ansatzes. Even when the symmetry is only approximative, there is still a significant performance gain over non-symmetrized ansatzes. We show how the symmetry can be included in the quantum circuit in a straightforward constructive method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.12764 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The probability of a given graph being connected against the edge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Analysis of quantum neural network performance via edge cases

    quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Edge-case graphs show that permutation-invariant and cyclic-invariant quantum neural networks do not learn a simple edge-counting surrogate for graph connectedness.

  2. Clique detection using symmetry-restricted quantum circuits

    quant-ph 2025-06 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    Permutation-invariant quantum circuits label cliques in small random graphs more accurately than cyclic-invariant or standard ansatze in simulation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [34]

    Permutation-invariant quantum circuits,

    M. B. Mansky, S. L. Castillo, V . R. Puigvert, and C. Linnhoff-Popien, “Permutation-invariant quantum circuits,” Dec. 2023, arXiv:2312.14909 [quant-ph]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.14909

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Quantum computing based hy- brid solution strategies for large-scale discrete-continuous optimization problems,

    A. Ajagekar, T. Humble, and F. You, “Quantum computing based hy- brid solution strategies for large-scale discrete-continuous optimization problems,”Computers & Chemical Engineering, vol. 132, p. 106630, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    D. L. Applegate,The traveling salesman problem: a computational study. Princeton university press, 2006, vol. 17. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.com/books?hl=de&lr=&id=vhsJbqomDuIC&oi= fnd&pg=PP11&dq=Applegate,+D.+L.%3B+Bixby,+R.+M.%3B+Chv% C3%A1tal,+V .%3B+Cook,+W.+J.+(2006),+The+Traveling+Salesman+ Problem&ots=YLDITxNZc6&sig=ogTwJ2Ss2W A8iuwl...

    work page 2006

  4. [3]

    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, J. M. Arrazola, U. Azad, S. Banning, C. Blank, T. R. Bromley, B. A. Cordier, J. Ceroni, A. Delgado, O. Di Matteo, A. Dusko, T. Garg, D. Guala, A. Hayes, R. Hill, A. Ijaz, T. Isacsson, D. Ittah, S. Jahangiri, P. Jain, E. Jiang, A. ...

    arXiv 2022

  5. [4]

    Quantum Machine Learning,

    J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, “Quantum Machine Learning,”Nature, vol. 549, no. 7671, pp. 195–202, Sep. 2017, arXiv: 1611.09347. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1611.09347

    arXiv 2017

  6. [5]

    Geometric Deep Learning: Grids, Groups, Graphs, Geodesics, and Gauges,

    M. M. Bronstein, J. Bruna, T. Cohen, and P. Veli ˇckovi´c, “Geometric Deep Learning: Grids, Groups, Graphs, Geodesics, and Gauges,” May 2021, arXiv:2104.13478 [cs, stat]. [Online]. Available: http: //arxiv.org/abs/2104.13478

    arXiv 2021

  7. [6]

    Quantum optimal control with quantum computers: A hybrid algorithm featuring machine learning optimization,

    D. Castaldo, M. Rosa, and S. Corni, “Quantum optimal control with quantum computers: A hybrid algorithm featuring machine learning optimization,”Physical Review A, vol. 103, no. 2, p. 022613, Feb. 2021, publisher: American Physical Society. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.103.022613

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.103.022613 2021

  8. [7]

    A Tutorial on Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA): Fundamentals and Applications,

    J. Choi and J. Kim, “A Tutorial on Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA): Fundamentals and Applications,” in 2019 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology Convergence (ICTC), Oct. 2019, pp. 138–142, iSSN: 2162-

    work page 2019

Show all 57 references
  1. [8]

    Exploring Potential Applications of Quantum Computing in Transportation Modelling,

    C. H. V . Cooper, “Exploring Potential Applications of Quantum Computing in Transportation Modelling,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 14 712–14 720, Sep. 2022, conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems...

    2022

  2. [9]

    Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation,

    D. Deutsch and R. Jozsa, “Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation,”Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences, vol. 439, no. 1907, pp. 553–558, Dec. 1992, publisher: Royal Society. [Online]. Available: https://royalsociet...

    1907

  3. [10]

    Convolutional neural network: a review of models, methodologies and applications to object detection,

    A. Dhillon and G. K. Verma, “Convolutional neural network: a review of models, methodologies and applications to object detection,” Progress in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 85–112, Jun. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13748-019-00203-0

    2020 doi

  4. [11]

    Quantum algorithms for optimal graph traversal problems,

    S. D ¨orn, “Quantum algorithms for optimal graph traversal problems,” inQuantum Information and Computation V, vol. 6573. SPIE, 2007, pp. 116–125. [Online]. Available: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/6573/ 65730D/Quantum-algorithms-for-optimal...

    2007

  5. [12]

    On random graphs. I

    P. Erd ˝os and A. R ´enyi, “On random graphs. I.”Publicationes Mathematicae Debrecen, vol. 6, no. 3-4, pp. 290–297, 1959. [Online]. Available: https://publi.math.unideb.hu/load doi.php?pdoi= 10 5486 PMD 1959 6 3 4 12

    1959

  6. [13]

    A Hybrid Solution Method for the Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem Using a Quantum Annealer,

    S. Feld, C. Roch, T. Gabor, C. Seidel, F. Neukart, I. Galter, W. Mauerer, and C. Linnhoff-Popien, “A Hybrid Solution Method for the Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem Using a Quantum Annealer,”Frontiers in ICT, vol. 6, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.frontiersin.org/ar...

    2019

  7. [14]

    QUARK: A Framework for Quantum Computing Application Benchmarking,

    J. R. Fin ˇzgar, P. Ross, J. Klepsch, and A. Luckow, “QUARK: A Framework for Quantum Computing Application Benchmarking,” arXiv:2202.03028 [quant-ph], Feb. 2022, arXiv: 2202.03028. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2202.03028

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Robust Branch-and-Cut-and-Price for the Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem,

    R. Fukasawa, H. Longo, J. Lysgaard, M. P. d. Arag ˜ao, M. Reis, E. Uchoa, and R. F. Werneck, “Robust Branch-and-Cut-and-Price for the Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem,”Mathematical Programming, vol. 106, no. 3, pp. 491–511, May 2006. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10....

    2006 doi

  9. [16]

    Survey on graph neural networks,

    G. Gkarmpounis, C. Vranis, N. Vretos, and P. Daras, “Survey on graph neural networks,”IEEE Access, 2024

    2024

  10. [17]

    A new model for learning in graph domains,

    M. Gori, G. Monfardini, and F. Scarselli, “A new model for learning in graph domains,” inProceedings. 2005 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2005., vol. 2, Jul. 2005, pp. 729–734 vol. 2, iSSN: 2161-4407. [Online]. Available: https: //ieeexplore.ieee.org/a...

    2005

  11. [18]

    Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction,

    D. Gottesman, “Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction,” May 1997, arXiv:quant-ph/9705052. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/ quant-ph/9705052

    1997 arXiv

  12. [19]

    J. L. Gross and J. Yellen, Eds.,Handbook of graph theory, ser. Discrete mathematics and its applications. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, 2004

    2004

  13. [20]

    A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,

    L. K. Grover, “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,” inProceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing, ser. STOC ’96. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Jul. 1996, pp. 212–219. [Online]. Available: https:/...

    1996

  14. [21]

    Compact Lie Groups and Maximal Tori,

    B. Hall, “Compact Lie Groups and Maximal Tori,” inLie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Representations. Springer, Cham, 2015, pp. 307–341, iSSN: 2197-5612. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/chapter/ 10.1007/978-3-319-13467-3 11

    2015 doi

  15. [22]

    Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Representations,

    B. C. Hall, “Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Representations,” inQuantum Theory for Mathematicians, ser. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, B. C. Hall, Ed. New York, NY: Springer, 2013, pp. 333–

    2013

  16. [23]

    Helgason,Differential Geometry, Lie Groups, and Symmetric Spaces

    S. Helgason,Differential Geometry, Lie Groups, and Symmetric Spaces. Academic Press, Feb. 1979, google-Books-ID: DWGvsa6bcuMC

    1979

  17. [24]

    Impact of graph structures for QAOA on MaxCut,

    R. Herrman, L. Treffert, J. Ostrowski, P. C. Lotshaw, T. S. Humble, and G. Siopsis, “Impact of graph structures for QAOA on MaxCut,” Quantum Information Processing, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 1–21, Sep. 2021, company: Springer Distributor: Springer Institution: Springer Label: Spring...

    2021 doi

  18. [25]

    Connecting Ansatz Expressibility to Gradient Magnitudes and Barren Plateaus,

    Z. Holmes, K. Sharma, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles, “Connecting Ansatz Expressibility to Gradient Magnitudes and Barren Plateaus,” PRX Quantum, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 010313, Jan. 2022, publisher: American Physical Society. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PRXQu...

    2022

  19. [26]

    A survey of graph neural networks in real world: Imbalance, noise, privacy and ood challenges,

    W. Ju, S. Yi, Y . Wang, Z. Xiao, Z. Mao, H. Li, Y . Gu, Y . Qin, N. Yin, S. Wanget al., “A survey of graph neural networks in real world: Imbalance, noise, privacy and ood challenges,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04468, 2024

    2024

  20. [27]

    A survey on the vehicle routing problem and its variants,

    S. N. Kumar and R. Panneerselvam, “A survey on the vehicle routing problem and its variants,” 2012

    2012

  21. [28]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,The Classical Theory of Fields. Vol. 2, 4th ed. Butterworth-Heinemann, 1975, vol. 2

    1975

  22. [29]

    ——,Mechanics. Vol. 1, 3rd ed. Butterworth-Heinemann, 1976, vol. 1

    1976

  23. [30]

    ——,Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic Theory. Vol. 3, 3rd ed. Pergamon Press, 1977, vol. 3

    1977

  24. [31]

    Group-Invariant Quantum Machine Learning,

    M. Larocca, F. Sauvage, F. M. Sbahi, G. Verdon, P. J. Coles, and M. Cerezo, “Group-Invariant Quantum Machine Learning,”PRX Quantum, vol. 3, no. 3, p. 030341, Sep. 2022, publisher: American Physical Society. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PRXQuantum.3.030341

    2022

  25. [32]

    Backpropagation applied to handwritten zip code recognition,

    Y . LeCun, B. Boser, J. S. Denker, D. Henderson, R. E. Howard, W. Hubbard, and L. D. Jackel, “Backpropagation applied to handwritten zip code recognition,”Neural computation, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 541–551, 1989, publisher: MIT Press. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.o...

    1989

  26. [33]

    Symmetry-restricted quantum circuits are still well-behaved,

    M. B. Mansky, S. L. Castillo, M. Armayor-Mart ´ınez, A. Bravo de la Serna, G. Sathish, Z. Wang, S. W ¨olckerlt, and C. Linnhoff- Popien, “Symmetry-restricted quantum circuits are still well-behaved,” Feb. 2024, arXiv:2402.16329 [quant-ph]. [Online]. Available: http: //arxiv.or...

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Scaling of symmetry-restricted quantum circuits,

    M. B. Mansky, M. A. Martinez, A. Bravo de la Serna, S. L. Castillo, D. Nikoladou, G. Sathish, Z. Wang, S. W ¨olckert, and C. Linnhoff- Popien, “Scaling of symmetry-restricted quantum circuits,” Jun. 2024, arXiv:2406.09962. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.09962

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Quantum annealing of the traveling-salesman problem,

    R. Marto ˇn´ak, G. E. Santoro, and E. Tosatti, “Quantum annealing of the traveling-salesman problem,”Physical Review E, vol. 70, no. 5, p. 057701, Nov. 2004, publisher: American Physical Society. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.70.057701

    2004 doi

  29. [37]

    Exploiting Symmetry in Variational Quantum Machine Learning,

    J. J. Meyer, M. Mularski, E. Gil-Fuster, A. A. Mele, F. Arzani, A. Wilms, and J. Eisert, “Exploiting Symmetry in Variational Quantum Machine Learning,”PRX Quantum, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 010328, Mar. 2023, publisher: American Physical Society. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps....

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    The quantum mechanical solution of the traveling salesman problem,

    H. R. Moser, “The quantum mechanical solution of the traveling salesman problem,”Physica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanos- tructures, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 280–285, Feb. 2003. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386947702009281

    2003

  31. [39]

    Theory for Equivariant Quantum Neural Networks,

    Q. T. Nguyen, L. Schatzki, P. Braccia, M. Ragone, P. J. Coles, F. Sauvage, M. Larocca, and M. Cerezo, “Theory for Equivariant Quantum Neural Networks,”PRX Quantum, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 020328, May 2024, publisher: American Physical Society. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.o...

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information, 10th ed. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  33. [41]

    Number of simple graphs on n unlabeled nodes,

    OEIS Foundation Inc, “Number of simple graphs on n unlabeled nodes,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://oeis.org/A000088

    2024

  34. [42]

    Total number of nodes in all labeled graphs on n nodes,

    ——, “Total number of nodes in all labeled graphs on n nodes,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://oeis.org/A095340

    2024

  35. [43]

    Tensor networks for complex quantum systems,

    R. Or ´us, “Tensor networks for complex quantum systems,”Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 1, no. 9, pp. 538–550, Sep. 2019, number: 9 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group. [Online]. Available: https: //www.nature.com/articles/s42254-019-0086-7

    2019

  36. [44]

    A Systematic Literature Review of Quantum Computing for Routing Problems,

    E. Osaba, E. Villar-Rodriguez, and I. Oregi, “A Systematic Literature Review of Quantum Computing for Routing Problems,”IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 55 805–55 817, 2022, conference Name: IEEE Access. [On- line]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9781399

    2022

  37. [45]

    Variational quantum algorithms for combinatorial optimization,

    D. F. Perez-Ramirez, “Variational quantum algorithms for combinatorial optimization,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407. 06421

    2024

  38. [46]

    A Unified Theory of Barren Plateaus for Deep Parametrized Quantum Circuits,

    M. Ragone, B. N. Bakalov, F. Sauvage, A. F. Kemper, C. O. Marrero, M. Larocca, and M. Cerezo, “A Unified Theory of Barren Plateaus for Deep Parametrized Quantum Circuits,” Taipei, Taiwan, 2024, arXiv:2309.09342 [quant-ph]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.09342

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    From Problem to Solution: A General Pipeline to Solve Optimisation Problems on Quantum Hardware,

    T. Rohe, S. Gr ¨atz, M. K ¨olle, S. Zielinski, J. Stein, and C. Linnhoff- Popien, “From Problem to Solution: A General Pipeline to Solve Optimisation Problems on Quantum Hardware,” inAdvances in Information and Communication. Springer, Cham, 2025, pp. 21–41, iSSN: 2367-3389. [...

    2025 doi

  40. [48]

    Theoretical guarantees for permutation-equivariant quantum neural networks,

    L. Schatzki, M. Larocca, Q. T. Nguyen, F. Sauvage, and M. Cerezo, “Theoretical guarantees for permutation-equivariant quantum neural networks,”npj Quantum Information, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–14, Jan. 2024, publisher: Nature Publishing Group. [Online]. Available: https://www.nat...

    2024

  41. [49]

    An introduction to quantum machine learning,

    M. Schuld, I. Sinayskiy, and F. Petruccione, “An introduction to quantum machine learning,”Contemporary Physics, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 172–185, Apr. 2015, arXiv: 1409.3097. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.3097

    2015 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring,

    P. Shor, “Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring,” inProceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Nov. 1994, pp. 124–134

    1994

  43. [51]

    Quan- tum Natural Gradient,

    J. Stokes, J. Izaac, N. Killoran, and G. Carleo, “Quan- tum Natural Gradient,”Quantum, vol. 4, p. 269, May 2020, publisher: Verein zur F ¨orderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften. [Online]. Available: https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2020-05-25-269/

    2020

  44. [52]

    Comparison of QAOA with Quantum and Simulated Annealing,

    M. Streif and M. Leib, “Comparison of QAOA with Quantum and Simulated Annealing,” Jan. 2019, arXiv:1901.01903 [quant-ph]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1901.01903

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  46. [54]

    Review of vehicle routing problems: Models, classification and solving algorithms,

    H. Zhang, H. Ge, J. Yang, and Y . Tong, “Review of vehicle routing problems: Models, classification and solving algorithms,”Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, pp. 1–27, 2022

    2022

  47. [55]

    Variational post-selection for ground states and thermal states simulation,

    S.-X. Zhang, J. Miao, and C.-Y . Hsieh, “Variational post-selection for ground states and thermal states simulation,”Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 015028, Nov. 2024, publisher: IOP Publishing. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ ad8fca

    2024 doi

  48. [366]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7116-5 16

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7116-5 16

    doi

  49. [1233]

    Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/ 8939749

    [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/ 8939749

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.