Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Quantum Boltzmann Machines using Parallel Annealing for Medical Image Classification

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that supervised Quantum Boltzmann Machines trained with parallel quantum annealing can classify MedMNIST medical images as accurately as similarly sized CNNs while needing far fewer epochs, and that the parallel scheme…

desk verdict A useful, honestly hedged engineering contribution: PQA with buffer-separated subgraphs trains supervised QBMs on medical images, and the ~70% QPU-time speedup is the strongest result; the CNN-comparable accuracy claim is suggestive but rests on thin QA evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14116 v2 pith:IE7DGGPG submitted 2025-07-18 quant-ph cs.ETcs.LG

Daniëlle Schuman , Mark V. Seebode , Tobias Rohe , Maximilian Balthasar Mansky , Michael Schroedl-Baumann , Jonas Stein , Claudia Linnhoff-Popien , Florian Krellner This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.ETcs.LG
keywords QuantumBoltzmannMachinesParallelAnnealingMedicalimageclassificationMedMNISTSupervisedmachinetrainingsamplingNear-termlearning
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

Training a Quantum Boltzmann Machine normally costs a lot of quantum-annealer time, because every gradient step needs many Boltzmann samples and each sample has traditionally come from one problem instance at a time. This paper tries to make supervised QBM training practical by embedding several independent copies of the same network in one annealing run, separated on the chip so they do not interfere, and by keeping the input images out of the qubit encoding entirely: clamped inputs act only as biases. On PneumoniaMNIST and BreastMNIST, the authors report that the resulting QBMs reach test accuracy comparable to similarly sized CNNs while needing far fewer epochs, and that the parallel embedding reduces quantum-hardware time by 69.65% compared with sequential annealing. They present this as a step toward real-world, near-term quantum machine learning, while noting that the hardware results use only three random seeds and that hyperparameters were chosen with simulated annealing as a stand-in for the quantum process.

What carries the argument

The central object is the parallel embedding of a QUBO, the binary energy formulation of the QBM, onto the annealer's hardware graph. Because the input pixels are clamped, the QBM's energy for the free units reduces to an effective bias term, so only hidden units and the label unit need physical qubits; the paper encodes each model as a QUBO with at most 21 logical qubits. The hardware graph is partitioned into ten subgraphs with buffer zones of removed nodes between them, the same QUBO is embedded into each subgraph using an automatic embedding routine, and a single annealing cycle draws ten samples at once. This spatial separation is the part of the argument that is supposed to preserve sample quality while delivering the measured 69.65% reduction in processing time.

What would settle it

Repeat the QBM(QA) training with hyperparameters tuned directly on the quantum annealer rather than via simulated annealing, using many random seeds; if accuracy drops relative to the three-seed SA-tuned runs or the early-epoch advantage disappears, the central practical claim fails. A complementary check is to compare sample quality and classification accuracy from parallel embeddings with and without buffer zones, which would reveal whether the 69.65% speed-up comes at a hidden quality cost.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an annealing-based Quantum Boltzmann Machine can be trained for supervised binary image classification on current hardware with a parallel embedding scheme that makes the training time competitive with classical baselines. Only the hidden units and one label unit are embedded as qubits; the 784 input pixels are clamped to the network and enter only through effective biases, so the embedded model stays small regardless of image size. Ten copies of the quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) model are placed in ten separated subgraphs of the annealer's graph, and one annealing cycle returns ten Boltzmann samples. On PneumoniaMNIST the QA-trained QBM reaches 84.03% test accuracy and an AUC of 0.7996; on BreastMNIST it reaches 76.28% and 0.5946. The authors do not claim a decisive accuracy win over CNNs; their claim is that this near-classical accuracy is reached within the first five to eight epochs and that the parallel annealing gives a 69.65% reduction in quantum-hardware time, which together make supervised QBM training a plausible near-term option.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that hyperparameters chosen with simulated annealing transfer to the quantum annealer, since the paper concedes the two sampling processes do not necessarily return the same parameters and the hardware results use only three seeds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • QPU-time budgets for QBM experiments can be cut by roughly two-thirds, allowing more seeds, more hyperparameter trials, or larger datasets for the same cost.
  • Because input pixels enter only as biases, moving to larger images does not change the number of embedded qubits, so the approach scales to bigger inputs without needing bigger hardware.
  • The supervised formulation extends parallel-annealing QBM training from the unsupervised setting of Noe et al. to classification, the setting needed for medical diagnostics.
  • On scarce medical datasets like BreastMNIST, all tested models struggle to generalize, so the practical benefit here is faster training rather than higher accuracy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A useful next experiment is to measure end-to-end wall-clock time including graph partitioning and embedding, not just annealer time, to see whether the 69.65% advantage survives in practice.
  • A classical fully connected Boltzmann Machine or discriminative Restricted Boltzmann Machine trained with the same update rule would isolate the quantum contribution better than the CNN baseline; the paper itself notes that such a comparison is needed.
  • If simulated-annealing hyperparameters do not transfer to the annealer, the three-seed QA results may underestimate the model: QA-tuned hyperparameters could close the gap to the larger ResNet baselines.
  • For multi-class medical datasets, label units would scale linearly with the number of classes, which should keep the parallel embedding scheme usable for realistic clinical label sets.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents an improved parallel quantum annealing (PQA) scheme for supervised training of quantum Boltzmann machines (QBMs) on the D-Wave Advantage system. The authors partition the Pegasus graph into ten isolated subgraphs, embed one QBM instance per subgraph, and draw ten samples per annealing cycle. They evaluate QBMs on PneumoniaMNIST and BreastMNIST, using simulated-annealing-selected hyperparameters for all QBM runs and a small subset (three seeds) of QA retraining; they compare against similarly sized CNNs and report per-epoch test accuracy and AUC curves. They also measure QPU time for PQA versus sequential QA and report a 69.65% reduction. The paper concludes that QBMs reach CNN-comparable accuracy with markedly fewer epochs and that PQA yields a large QPU-time reduction.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides one of the first demonstrations of supervised QBM training on real annealer hardware for medical image benchmarks, with a concrete technique (controlled subgraph placement with buffer zones) that mitigates crosstalk in parallel embeddings. The QPU-time measurement is direct and the 'fewer epochs' claim is supported by per-epoch curves on both datasets. The significance is moderate: the classification accuracies are not competitive with large CNNs, the QA portion of the comparison rests on three seeds with SA-selected hyperparameters, and the authors themselves note that no clear general conclusion can yet be drawn about QBM versus CNN performance. The contribution is nevertheless a useful step toward practical PQA-based QBM training.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III-B.1, III-C, Fig. 4] The QA-based QBM results, which are the only direct evidence for the headline 'comparable to CNNs with markedly fewer epochs' claim, are produced with hyperparameters selected by SA rather than by QA. All QBM hyperparameters (hidden units, learning rate, batch size, sample count, epochs) were optimized with SA because QPU time was limited, and only the single best configuration per dataset was retrained on hardware with three seeds. The authors concede in Sec. IV that SA 'does not necessarily return the exact same parameters' as QA. Since D-Wave sampling is hardware-specific and has an instance-dependent effective temperature (Sec. II-B), the SA-optimal settings may be far from QA-optimal. The three-seed averaging is also explicitly acknowledged as not representative. This does not invalidate the PQA speed-up measurement, but it does mean the Fig. 4 comparisons between QBM(QA) and CNN/QBM(SA) are not yet a reliable basis for the abstract's claims. Please provide a sensitivity analysis on the QPU (e.g., vary learning rate and hidden-unit count around the SA optimum on a validation subset) or re-scope the claims to 'QBM(SA)' and report QA results as preliminary.
  2. [Abstract vs. Sec. III-C] The abstract states that QBMs 'achieve reasonable results, comparable to those of similarly-sized CNNs, with markedly smaller numbers of epochs,' but Sec. III-C explicitly says 'we do not see any clear conclusions that can be drawn from these two experiments about the general (medical) image classification performance of QBMs in comparison to CNNs just yet.' The per-epoch comparison in Fig. 4 is based on one selected hyperparameter configuration per model class, not on the distribution of configurations shown in Fig. 3. Please either align the abstract and conclusion with the more cautious statement in Sec. III-C, or provide a statistical comparison across multiple configurations and seeds that supports the stronger claim.
  3. [Sec. II-D, Eq. (8)] The input encoding is underspecified. The text assigns 'one input unit to each of the 784 pixel values' but does not state how the 28x28 grayscale pixel values (presumably in [0,255] or normalized [0,1]) are mapped to the v_d values used in Eq. (8). If real-valued inputs are used directly as conditional biases, this should be stated explicitly together with the normalization; if the pixels are binarized, the threshold should be given. This detail is needed to reproduce the parameter counts (1568 input weights plus 2 for one hidden unit) and the experiments. It also affects the claim that 'input units do not necessitate specific hardware resources,' since arbitrary real-valued biases are still a modeling choice that must be documented.
  4. [Sec. III-C, Fig. 5] The 69.65% QPU-time speedup is a headline quantitative claim, but the description reports only a single measurement campaign ('we tracked the QPU time ... in seconds for 3 mini-batches') without stating the number of repeated runs, the variance across configurations, or whether the sequential baseline includes the same number of samples under identical embedding conditions. Please report per-configuration raw times and at least a standard deviation or interquartile range, and clarify whether the times are QPU access times only or include programming/readout overhead. As written, the precision of '69.65%' is not assessable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III-B.1] The phrase 'Despite employing this alternative as as a workaround' contains a duplicated 'as'.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption, Sec. III-C] The caption spells 'PneunomiaMNIST' instead of 'PneumoniaMNIST', and Sec. III-C contains 'both of theses questions' instead of 'these questions'.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption reads 'best identified hyperparameters settings'; it should be 'best identified hyperparameter settings'. Given the authors' own caveat, the QBM(QA) standard deviation should be visually distinguished or annotated as based on three seeds.
  4. [References] Reference [29] contains 'Accesed' instead of 'Accessed'; please also check the formatting of the URLs and DOIs in Refs. [1], [20], [21] for consistency.
  5. [Sec. III-A] For BreastMNIST, the authors should clarify the label convention ('normal'/'benign' as positive and 'malignant' as negative) against the original dataset's class definitions, since this affects the direction of the AUC interpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the classification results and QPU-time speedup are independent measurements on held-out test data and hardware timers; the self-cited SA-as-proxy premise is a stated, non-equivalent methodological assumption rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The central claims are empirical and not derived from their own inputs. Test-set accuracy and AUC curves in Fig. 4 are measured on held-out MedMNIST test splits after hyperparameters were fixed by validation-based selection, which is standard model selection rather than a fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. The QPU-time speedup of 69.65% in Fig. 5 is a direct timer comparison between sequential and parallel annealing executions. The use of simulated annealing to choose QBM hyperparameters in Sec. III-B.1 is justified by prior work [20], [21], some of which overlaps with the current authors, but the paper itself disclaims the proxy in Sec. IV: SA 'does not necessarily return the exact same parameters' as QA. That is a transfer and statistical-power limitation, not a circular reduction: the QA training curves are separately measured on hardware after the SA-chosen settings are fixed. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz-smuggling citation, or renaming of a known result is used to force the conclusions. The self-citations are background support for a methodological premise and are not the source of the headline measurements.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No invented physical entities are introduced. The new component is an embedding layout, ten subgraphs plus buffer zones, which is an engineering choice, not an entity. The listed free parameters are either selected by validation-based hyperparameter search or fixed by hand; the model does not fit new constants to force its conclusions.

free parameters (6)
  • Number of hidden units = 10 (PneumoniaMNIST), 8 (BreastMNIST)
    Tuned via limited SA-based Bayesian search over 1-20; fixed for QA retraining.
  • Learning rate = 0.45295 (PneumoniaMNIST), 0.43496 (BreastMNIST)
    Best values from SA-based search over [1e-5, 0.6].
  • Batch size = 73 (PneumoniaMNIST), 12 (BreastMNIST)
    Best values from search over 1-100.
  • Sample count = 100 (PneumoniaMNIST), 400 (BreastMNIST)
    Number of samples per phase used to estimate Boltzmann averages; selected over 10-1000.
  • Epochs = 20 (PneumoniaMNIST), 13 (BreastMNIST)
    Best QBM values from the search; per-epoch curves show fast convergence.
  • Number of PQA subgraphs = 10
    Hand-chosen partition of the Pegasus graph to fit up to 21 logical qubits with buffer separation; directly sets the parallelism and capacity.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Samples from a D-Wave quantum annealer follow an approximate Boltzmann distribution, and raw QA samples without temperature rescaling are sufficient for QBM training.
    Invoked in Sec. II-B with reference to Korenkevych et al. [27]; the whole training procedure depends on treating QA measurement outcomes as Boltzmann samples.
  • domain assumption Simulated annealing is a faithful enough proxy for quantum annealing that hyperparameters selected by SA transfer to QA hardware.
    Used in Sec. III-B.1 because QPU time was limited. Sec. IV later concedes that SA does not necessarily return the exact same parameters as QA, so this premise is load-bearing and uncertain.
  • domain assumption Embedding multiple PQA instances in separated subgraphs with buffer zones preserves sample quality by suppressing inter-instance coupling.
    Core of the proposed improvement in Sec. II-D; based on a suggestion in Pelofske et al. [22], but the paper does not directly measure cross-talk or sample fidelity.
  • standard math The discriminative gradient formulas of Amin et al. [7], Eqs. (4)-(15), correctly characterize supervised QBM training with clamped input units.
    Adopted without derivation from the cited QBM framework; the training loop and inference rely on these equations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Boltzmann Machines using Parallel Annealing for Medical Image Classification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IE7DGGPG

@misc{pith2026250714116,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Boltzmann Machines using Parallel Annealing for Medical Image Classification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IE7DGGPG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14116}
}
read the original abstract

Exploiting the fact that samples drawn from a quantum annealer inherently follow a Boltzmann-like distribution, annealing-based Quantum Boltzmann Machines (QBMs) have gained increasing popularity in the quantum research community. While they harbor great promises for quantum speed-up, their usage currently stays a costly endeavor, as large amounts of QPU time are required to train them. This limits their applicability in the NISQ era. Following the idea of No\`e et al. (2024), who tried to alleviate this cost by incorporating parallel quantum annealing into their unsupervised training of QBMs, this paper presents an improved version of parallel quantum annealing that we employ to train QBMs in a supervised setting. Saving qubits to encode the inputs, the latter setting allows us to test our approach on medical images from the MedMNIST data set (Yang et al., 2023), thereby moving closer to real-world applicability of the technology. Our experiments show that QBMs using our approach already achieve reasonable results, comparable to those of similarly-sized Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), with markedly smaller numbers of epochs than these classical models. Our parallel annealing technique leads to a speed-up of almost 70 % compared to regular annealing-based BM executions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14116 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Structure of a fully connected Boltzmann Machine. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of the parallel embedding approach on the Pegasus topology. (a) The topology is partitioned into 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The figures compare the performance of the QBMs and CNNs on the PneunomiaMNIST and the BreastMNIST data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Test accuracies and AUC-Scores of QBMs trained using SA and QA, as well as a classical CNN with the best [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The plot shows the total QPU time required to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantum parallel training of a boltzmann machine on an adiabatic quantum computer,

    D. No `e, L. Rocutto, L. Moro, and E. Prati, “Quantum parallel training of a boltzmann machine on an adiabatic quantum computer,” Advanced Quantum Technologies, vol. 7, no. 7, p. 2300330, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    MedMNIST v2-a large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2d and 3d biomedical image classification,

    J. Yang, R. Shi, D. Wei, Z. Liu, L. Zhao, B. Ke, H. Pfister, and B. Ni, “MedMNIST v2-a large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2d and 3d biomedical image classification,” Scientific Data , vol. 10, no. 1, p. 41, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Deep learning in medical image anal- ysis,

    D. Shen, G. Wu, and H.-I. Suk, “Deep learning in medical image anal- ysis,” Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering , vol. 19, no. V olume 19, 2017, pp. 221–248, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis,

    G. Litjens, T. Kooi, B. E. Bejnordi, A. A. A. Setio, F. Ciompi, M. Ghafoorian, J. A. van der Laak, B. van Ginneken, and C. I. S ´anchez, “A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis,” Medical Image Analysis, vol. 42, pp. 60–88, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    A comparison of deep learning performance against health-care professionals in detecting diseases from medical imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis,

    X. Liu, L. Faes, A. U. Kale, S. K. Wagner, D. J. Fu, A. Bruynseels, T. Mahendiran, G. Moraes, M. Shamdas, C. Kern, J. R. Ledsam, M. K. Schmid, K. Balaskas, E. J. Topol, L. M. Bachmann, P. A. Keane, and A. K. Denniston, “A comparison of deep learning performance against health-care professionals in detecting diseases from medical imaging: a systematic revi...

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Neural architecture search for pneumo- nia diagnosis from chest x-rays,

    A. Gupta, P. Sheth, and P. Xie, “Neural architecture search for pneumo- nia diagnosis from chest x-rays,” Scientific Reports , vol. 12, p. 11309, Jul 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Quantum boltzmann machine,

    M. H. Amin, E. Andriyash, J. Rolfe, B. Kulchytskyy, and R. Melko, “Quantum boltzmann machine,” Phys. Rev. X , vol. 8, p. 021050, May 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    A learning algorithm for boltzmann machines,

    D. H. Ackley, G. E. Hinton, and T. J. Sejnowski, “A learning algorithm for boltzmann machines,” Cognitive science, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 147–169, 1985

    1985

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Optimal perceptual inference,

    G. Hinton and T. Sejnowski, “Optimal perceptual inference,” in Pro- ceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 448–453, 01 1983

    1983

  2. [10]

    A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets,

    G. E. Hinton, S. Osindero, and Y .-W. Teh, “A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets,” Neural Comput., vol. 18, p. 1527–1554, July 2006

    2006

  3. [11]

    Deep boltzmann machines,

    R. Salakhutdinov and G. Hinton, “Deep boltzmann machines,” in Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Artificial In- telligence and Statistics (D. van Dyk and M. Welling, eds.), vol. 5 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , (Hilton Clearwater Beach 1While...

    2009

  4. [12]

    An introduction to restricted boltzmann ma- chines,

    A. Fischer and C. Igel, “An introduction to restricted boltzmann ma- chines,” in Progress in Pattern Recognition, Image Analysis, Computer Vision, and Applications: 17th Iberoamerican Congress, CIARP 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina, September 3-6, 2012. Proceedings 17 , pp. 14– ...

    2012

  5. [13]

    Limitations of error corrected quantum annealing in improving the performance of boltzmann ma- chines,

    R. Y . Li, T. Albash, and D. A. Lidar, “Limitations of error corrected quantum annealing in improving the performance of boltzmann ma- chines,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 5, p. 045010, aug 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Applying a quantum annealing based restricted boltzmann machine for MNIST handwritten digit classification,

    K. Kurowski, M. Slysz, M. Subocz, and R. R ´o˙zycki, “Applying a quantum annealing based restricted boltzmann machine for MNIST handwritten digit classification,” Computational Methods in Science and Technology, vol. V ol. 27, No. 3, p. 99–107, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Training deep boltzmann networks with sparse ising machines,

    S. Niazi, S. Chowdhury, N. A. Aadit, M. Mohseni, Y . Qin, and K. Y . Camsari, “Training deep boltzmann networks with sparse ising machines,” Nature Electronics, vol. 7, pp. 610–619, Jul 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Application of quantum annealing to training of deep neural networks,

    S. Adachi and M. Henderson, “Application of quantum annealing to training of deep neural networks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.06356, p. 3, 10 2015

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Training and classification using a restricted boltzmann machine on the D-Wave 2000Q,

    V . Dixit, R. Selvarajan, M. A. Alam, T. S. Humble, and S. Kais, “Training and classification using a restricted boltzmann machine on the D-Wave 2000Q,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.03247 , 2020

    2005 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A boltzmann machine implementation for the D-Wave,

    J. E. Dorband, “A boltzmann machine implementation for the D-Wave,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06123 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Image classification with quantum pre-training and auto-encoders,

    S. Piat, N. Usher, S. Severini, M. Herbster, T. Mansi, and P. Mountney, “Image classification with quantum pre-training and auto-encoders,” In- ternational Journal of Quantum Information, vol. 16, no. 08, p. 1840009, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Towards transfer learning for large-scale image classification using annealing-based quantum boltzmann machines,

    D. Schuman, L. S ¨unkel, P. Altmann, J. Stein, C. Roch, T. Gabor, and C. Linnhoff-Popien, “Towards transfer learning for large-scale image classification using annealing-based quantum boltzmann machines,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engi- nee...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Exploring unsupervised anomaly detection with quantum boltzmann machines in fraud detection,

    J. Stein, D. Schuman, M. Benkard, T. Holger, W. Sajko, M. K ¨olle, J. N ¨ußlein, L. S ¨unkel, O. Salomon, and C. Linnhoff-Popien, “Exploring unsupervised anomaly detection with quantum boltzmann machines in fraud detection,” in Proceedings of the 16th International Conference ...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Parallel quantum annealing,

    E. Pelofske, G. Hahn, and H. N. Djidjev, “Parallel quantum annealing,” Scientific Reports, vol. 12, p. 4499, Mar 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    From problem to solution: A general pipeline to solve optimi- sation 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 optimi- sation problems on quantum hardware,” in Future of Information and Communication Conference, pp. 21–41, Springer, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Quantum an- nealing: An overview,

    A. Rajak, S. Suzuki, A. Dutta, and B. K. Chakrabarti, “Quantum an- nealing: An overview,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, vol. 381, no. 2241, p. 20210417, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    D-Wave solver documentation: What is quantum annealing?

    D-Wave Quantum Inc., “D-Wave solver documentation: What is quantum annealing?.” https://docs.dwavesys.com/docs/latest/c gs 2. html. Accessed: 2025-03-08

    2025

  18. [26]

    A cross-disciplinary introduction to quantum annealing-based algorithms,

    S. E. Venegas-Andraca, W. Cruz-Santos, C. C. McGeoch, and M. Lan- zagorta, “A cross-disciplinary introduction to quantum annealing-based algorithms,” Contemporary Physics, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 174–197, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Benchmarking quantum hardware for training of fully visible boltzmann machines,

    D. Korenkevych, Y . Xue, Z. Bian, F. Chudak, W. G. Macready, J. Rolfe, and E. Andriyash, “Benchmarking quantum hardware for training of fully visible boltzmann machines,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.04528 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Estimation of effective temperatures in quantum annealers for sampling applications: A case study with possible applications in deep learning,

    M. Benedetti, J. Realpe-G ´omez, R. Biswas, and A. Perdomo-Ortiz, “Estimation of effective temperatures in quantum annealers for sampling applications: A case study with possible applications in deep learning,” Physical Review A , vol. 94, no. 2, p. 022308, 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    Minorminer API documentation

    D-Wave Quantum Inc., “Minorminer API documentation.” https://docs.dwavequantum.com/en/latest/ocean/api ref minorminer/ source/index.html#minorminer. Accesed: 2025-03-30

    2025

  22. [30]

    Advantage processor overview,

    C. C. McGeoch and P. Farr ´e, “Advantage processor overview,” Tech. Rep. 14-1058A-A, D-Wave Systems Inc., Burnaby, BC, Canada, Jan

  23. [31]

    D-Wave Ocean SDK

    D-Wave Quantum Inc., “D-Wave Ocean SDK.” https://docs. dwavequantum.com/en/latest/ocean/api ref dimod/generated/dimod. utilities.qubo to ising.html#dimod.utilities.qubo to ising. Accessed: 2025-04-15

    2025

  24. [32]

    Pymetis

    A. Kloeckner, M. Wala, N. Hartland, A. Danial, F. Obermeyer, C. Wu, and C. Gohlke, “Pymetis.” https://github.com/inducer/pymetis, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Generalization and network design strategies,

    Y . LeCun, “Generalization and network design strategies,” tech. rep., Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, 1989

    1989

  26. [34]

    Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks,

    A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton, “Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks,” in Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems - Volume 1 , NIPS’12, (Red Hook, NY , USA), p. 1097–1105, Curran Assoc...

    2012

  27. [35]

    Deep learning,

    Y . LeCun, Y . Bengio, and G. Hinton, “Deep learning,” nature, vol. 521, no. 7553, pp. 436–444, 2015

    2015

  28. [36]

    Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,

    K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,” in 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings (Y . Bengio and Y . LeCun, eds.), 2015

    2015

  29. [37]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 770–778, 2016

    2016

  30. [38]

    resnet18 – PyTorch torchvision 0.22 documenta- tion

    Torch Contributors, “resnet18 – PyTorch torchvision 0.22 documenta- tion.” https://docs.pytorch.org/vision/0.22/models/generated/torchvision. models.resnet18.html?highlight=resnet18, 2017. Accessed: 2025-07-13

    2017

  31. [39]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimiza- tion,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimiza- tion,” in 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings (Y . Bengio and Y . LeCun, eds.), 2015

    2015

  32. [40]

    Identifying medical diagnoses and treatable diseases by image-based deep learning,

    D. S. Kermany, M. Goldbaum, W. Cai, C. C. Valentim, H. Liang, S. L. Baxter, A. McKeown, G. Yang, X. Wu, F. Yan, et al. , “Identifying medical diagnoses and treatable diseases by image-based deep learning,” cell, vol. 172, no. 5, pp. 1122–1131, 2018

    2018

  33. [41]

    Dataset of breast ultrasound images,

    W. Al-Dhabyani, M. Gomaa, H. Khaled, and A. Fahmy, “Dataset of breast ultrasound images,” Data in Brief , vol. 28, p. 104863, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    Experiment tracking with weights and biases,

    L. Biewald, “Experiment tracking with weights and biases,” 2020. Software available from wandb.com

    2020

  35. [43]

    Comparative study of the performance of quantum annealing and simulated annealing,

    H. Nishimori, J. Tsuda, and S. Knysh, “Comparative study of the performance of quantum annealing and simulated annealing,” Physical Review E, vol. 91, no. 1, p. 012104, 2015

    2015

  36. [44]

    Libsvm: A library for support vector machines,

    C.-C. Chang and C.-J. Lin, “Libsvm: A library for support vector machines,” ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. , vol. 2, May 2011

    2011

  37. [45]

    Random search for hyper-parameter op- timization,

    J. Bergstra and Y . Bengio, “Random search for hyper-parameter op- timization,” Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 281–305, 2012

    2012

  38. [46]

    resnet50 – PyTorch torchvision 0.22 documenta- tion

    Torch Contributors, “resnet50 – PyTorch torchvision 0.22 documenta- tion.” https://docs.pytorch.org/vision/0.22/models/generated/torchvision. models.resnet50.html?highlight=resnet50, 2017. Accessed: 2025-07-13

    2017

  39. [47]

    Learning long-term dependen- cies with gradient descent is difficult,

    Y . Bengio, P. Simard, and P. Frasconi, “Learning long-term dependen- cies with gradient descent is difficult,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 157–166, 1994

    1994

  40. [48]

    ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,

    J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei, “ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,” in 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 248–255, 2009

    2009

  41. [49]

    Classification using discriminative re- stricted boltzmann machines,

    H. Larochelle and Y . Bengio, “Classification using discriminative re- stricted boltzmann machines,” in Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning , pp. 536–543, 2008

    2008

  42. [50]

    Learning algorithms for the classification restricted boltzmann machine,

    H. Larochelle, M. Mandel, R. Pascanu, and Y . Bengio, “Learning algorithms for the classification restricted boltzmann machine,” The Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 643–669, 2012

    2012

  43. [51]

    Learning and relearning in boltzmann machines,

    G. E. Hinton, T. J. Sejnowski, et al. , “Learning and relearning in boltzmann machines,” Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition , vol. 1, no. 282-317, p. 2, 1986

    1986

  44. [52]

    Documentation of D-Wave Systems’ Simulated Annealing Sampler dwave-neal

    “Documentation of D-Wave Systems’ Simulated Annealing Sampler dwave-neal.” https://docs.ocean.dwavesys.com/projects/neal/en/latest/,

  45. [53]

    Contractive slab and spike convolutional deep boltzmann machine,

    B. Xiaojun and W. Haibo, “Contractive slab and spike convolutional deep boltzmann machine,” Neurocomputing, vol. 290, pp. 208–228, 2018

    2018

  46. [54]

    Accessed: 2023-08-04

    2023

  47. [55]

    Deep boltzmann machines,

    R. Salakhutdinov and G. Hinton, “Deep boltzmann machines,” in Artificial intelligence and statistics , pp. 448–455, PMLR, 2009

    2009

  48. [56]

    Centered convolutional deep boltzmann machine for 2d shape modeling,

    J. Yang, S. Liu, and X. Wang, “Centered convolutional deep boltzmann machine for 2d shape modeling,” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing , pp. 1–11, 2022

    2022

  49. [2022]

    Accessed: 2024-04-16

    2024

Pith tools

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