Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 8 minor 51 references

Quantum Machine Learning-based Test Oracle for Autonomous Mobile Robots

T0 review · 5 major / 8 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 QuReBot, a hybrid of quantum reservoir computing and a learned shortcut branch, predicts robot positions with 15 percent lower mean squared error than a classical neural network baseline.

desk verdict An honest, well-executed empirical study of a hybrid QRC + gated skip-connection for AMR next-state prediction, but the headline attribution to quantum dynamics is not yet supported because the missing control is a classical reservoir baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.02407 v1 pith:O47ISM5X submitted 2025-08-04 cs.SE

Xinyi Wang , Qinghua Xu , Paolo Arcaini , Shaukat Ali , Thomas Peyrucain This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SE
keywords QuantumreservoircomputingML-basedtestoracleRegressiontestingAutonomousmobilerobotsTimeseriespredictionResidualconnectionmachinelearningNext-state
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

Regression testing of robot software needs a way to say what correct behavior is, and this paper proposes a learned oracle that predicts where the robot will be next. The approach, called QuReBot, runs a short history of robot states through a quantum reservoir circuit and also through a learned shortcut branch, then blends the two with a learned weight. The paper reports that the quantum reservoir alone fails to converge, while QuReBot trains successfully and lowers mean squared prediction error by about 15 percent relative to a two-layer classical neural network. If this holds, updated navigation software can be checked against predicted expected motion without building a hand-crafted ground-truth oracle.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quantum reservoir circuit: normalized features are encoded as single-qubit rotations, the system evolves under a fixed randomly parameterized Hamiltonian between timesteps, and qubit expectation values form a high-dimensional feature vector for a linear readout. The main experiments use an Ising Hamiltonian reservoir with $H = \sum_j a_j X_j + \sum_{j<k} J_{jk} Z_j Z_k$, with coefficients fixed after random initialization. To keep long time sequences practical, only the encoded qubits are measured and reset between steps while ancilla qubits continue evolving, and a rewinding protocol reconstructs only the last $T_{\mathrm{wo}}$ steps. A learned projection-plus-ReLU branch provides the shortcut side, and a learned scalar gate $\alpha = \sigma(W_{sw}\operatorname{vec}(\hat{S}_t)+b_{sw})$ mixes the two branches as $r^*_t = (1-\alpha)r_t + \alpha r'_t$ before the readout predicts the next $K$ positions.

What would settle it

Train QuReBot with the quantum reservoir replaced by a classical reservoir of the same output dimension, such as an echo-state network or a fixed random feature map, while keeping the projection, gating, and readout unchanged; if the gain over the classical network persists, the improvement is not specifically quantum. A second check freezes the mixing weight at $\alpha = 0.5$ to see whether the learned gating, rather than the reservoir, is doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On navigation data from the TIAGo OMNI autonomous mobile robot in a simulated office environment, QuReBot predicts the robot's $(x,y)$ position up to $K$ steps ahead from the last $T$ observed states. The central finding is that the hybrid construction -- quantum reservoir plus a context-dependent residual-style shortcut -- converges where QRC alone does not and is more accurate than a classical two-layer feedforward baseline, with an average 15% lower $L_{\mathrm{MSE}}$ and statistically significant wins in 13 of the 15 feature-set and horizon configurations tested. A pilot study found that QRC-only fails to converge for all four reservoir circuits, with similar high error around 15.6. The paper interprets these results as evidence that the reservoir's quantum dynamics help extract temporal patterns, particularly when the number of input features is reduced, while the shortcut branch supplies the stability that QRC alone lacks.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the quantum reservoir's dynamics cause the improvement assumes the advantage over the fixed two-layer network is not just an effect of extra learned parameters, and the paper does not compare against a classical reservoir of similar capacity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A practical oracle for regression testing of autonomous mobile robots can be trained purely from logged navigation states of a stable release, then used to flag regressions in updated releases by comparing predicted and actual positions.
  • Because QuReBot converged across all tested configurations while the quantum reservoir alone did not, future QRC-based oracles for multivariate robot data should include a classical shortcut branch rather than relying on the reservoir alone.
  • Feature ablation shows that dropping orientation or velocity features can improve accuracy, so practitioners can reduce the number of sensors and qubits without sacrificing oracle quality.
  • Short prediction horizons up to $K=3$ are the most reliable, so the oracle is best used for short-term checking rather than long-horizon motion forecasting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The advantage over the classical network may come from the extra trainable components (projection, gating weight, readout) rather than from quantum dynamics; replacing the reservoir with a classical reservoir of equal capacity would test this directly.
  • Because reduced feature sets outperform the full seven-feature set, velocity and orientation features appear to add noise for this prediction task, and similar ablations on other robots could identify redundant sensor channels before deployment.
  • The experiments use a noiseless simulator; on real quantum hardware, decoherence and measurement noise could alter or erase the reported gain, so a simulator-versus-hardware comparison is the natural next check.
  • The two-branch design is not specific to this robot, so it should transfer to other multivariate temporal test-oracle problems such as elevators, drones, or autonomous vehicles.
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

5 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper presents QuReBot, a hybrid quantum reservoir computing (QRC) and neural-network model for next-state prediction of a TIAGo OMNI autonomous mobile robot, intended to serve as an ML-based test oracle for regression testing. The model combines a QRC branch, a residual/skip branch with a learned projection and gating weight, and a linear readout. The evaluation uses a Gazebo/ROS 2 simulation dataset with 14,236 time steps, three feature sets, horizons 1 to 5, 4-fold cross-validation, and 10 repetitions per configuration. The main reported findings are that QRC-only fails to converge, QuReBot converges and achieves about 15% lower MSE than a two-layer classical baseline (Skip-only), and that shorter horizons and reduced feature sets give better performance.

Significance. If the 15% improvement is confirmed, this is a useful industrial case study: it is among the first applications of quantum reservoir computing to an ML-based test oracle for a real mobile robot, and it ships open-source code and experimental data for replication. The evaluation is comparatively rigorous for the SE/QML literature, with 600 trained models per approach, cross-validation, repetition, statistical tests, and per-configuration boxplots. However, the central interpretive claim that quantum dynamics cause the improvement is not yet established, and the oracle is not exercised on actual regression-testing tasks; both gaps are fixable, and therefore the contribution, while promising, requires revision.

major comments (5)
  1. [§5.3, §6.2, Eqs. (10)–(15)] The answer to RQ1 attributes the improvement to the QRC branch's quantum dynamics, but the comparison is confounded. QuReBot differs from the Skip-only baseline not only by adding the QRC branch but also by adding a learned projection layer W_proj/b_proj, a learned gating weight alpha, and a readout trained jointly with these parameters, whereas Skip-only is a fixed two-layer MLP. No classical reservoir computing baseline (e.g., an Echo State Network with a comparable reservoir dimension and the same readout/gating setup) is run. Consequently, Table 2 shows that this particular hybrid architecture outperforms this particular MLP; it does not isolate the contribution of quantum dynamics. The Threats to Validity section acknowledges that alternative ML models could influence performance, but it does not address this specific confound. I recommend adding a classical reservoir baseline or, if that is infeasible, substantially rewording the abstract, RQ1, and §6.2 conclusions to claim only an architectural improvement.
  2. [§6.1 vs. Eq. (8), §5.4] The RQ0 result that 'QRC-only fails to converge' is difficult to interpret because the training procedure for QRC-only is not specified consistently. Section 2.2 and Eq. (8) describe the readout as a linear regression trained to minimize MSE, which would normally be solved in closed form, but §6.1 reports that validation loss failed to converge within 500 epochs, implying iterative gradient-based training. Please specify the exact training algorithm, loss, and stopping rule used for QRC-only, and provide learning curves; this matters because the failure of QRC-only motivates the hybrid architecture.
  3. [§5.6, Table 2] The significance tests in RQ1 treat the 40 LMSE values (4 folds x 10 repetitions) as independent samples in a Mann-Whitney U test, but the models are evaluated on the same folds and repeated under the same protocol, so the observations are paired or repeated. The independence assumption can inflate the reported significance. Use a paired or repeated-measures analysis (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank per fold and repetition, or a mixed-effects model) and report effect sizes with confidence intervals. The same concern applies to the RQ2 Wilcoxon comparisons, whose grouping across horizons mixes different feature sets.
  4. [§5.2, §6, title] The manuscript frames QuReBot as a test oracle for regression testing, but it never evaluates it as an oracle: the experiments only measure next-state prediction MSE on nominal navigation data. There is no fault-injected version of the TIAGo OMNI software, no set of regression test cases, and no measure of whether QuReBot can detect behavioral regressions. The abstract, Section 1, and Section 10 claim support for regression testing; these claims are only indirectly supported by prediction accuracy. Please add an oracle evaluation with injected faults or regressions, or explicitly reframe the contribution as next-state prediction accuracy that could be used as an oracle.
  5. [Table 2, Fig. 9, abstract] The headline '15% reduction' is not uniformly supported: for FS7 at K=3 and K=5, the p-values are 0.1673 and the paper itself treats these as non-significant. Moreover, the 15% average is not backed by a table of mean LMSE values, so its composition cannot be checked from the text. Report per-configuration means and confidence intervals, state how the 15% average is computed, and qualify the abstract's claim accordingly.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Eq. (9)] In Eq. (9), the index notation is inconsistent: the elements are written as r_t^(0), r_j^(1), ..., r_j^(D-1), mixing t and j; all indices should be t.
  2. [§5.2] The feature list says 'position (i.e., posx, posx)' but the second should be posy.
  3. [§6.3] In the horizon comparison, 'QuReBot with K=1, K=2, and FS3' should read 'K=3'; FS3 is not a defined feature set.
  4. [§6.3] The sentence advising practitioners to choose 'either with orientation or with velocity' is ambiguous given the feature sets: FS5 excludes orientation and FS4 excludes velocity, so the sentence should say 'either the orientation-including set (FS4) or the velocity-including set (FS5)' or similar.
  5. [Table 1] The gate table spells 'Hadamard' as 'Hardamard'.
  6. [References] References [4] and [48] are the same paper (Gartziandia et al., same title and journal) and should be merged.
  7. [Fig. 8(c)] In the EfficientSU2 circuit caption, the bare 'X' after the RZ gates is unclear; it should explicitly denote the CX entanglement gate.
  8. [Abstract] The abstract states that QML 'enables faster training', but no training-time measurements are reported anywhere; either add such measurements or remove this claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: QuReBot's 15% improvement is a held-out empirical result; the main weakness is a causal-attribution confound, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical rather than definitional. QuReBot's next-state prediction is trained with 4-fold cross-validation, a 20% validation split, early stopping, and final model selection on validation loss (Section 5.4), and all reported MSE comparisons are computed on test folds (Sections 5.6 and 6.2). The reservoir parameters are randomly assigned and fixed (Section 4.2), so they are not fitted to the prediction target; the trained weights are in the projection, gating, and readout layers, and the objective is the MSE between predicted and actual future positions (Eq. 16), not a restatement of the model's own inputs. No equation reduces to its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The central interpretive claim that the QRC branch's quantum dynamics cause the improvement is weaker than the experimental evidence: QuReBot adds a learned projection layer, a learned gating weight, and a readout relative to Skip-only, and no classical reservoir baseline is reported. The paper itself acknowledges this in Section 8 (Internal Validity), stating that 'Using alternative ML models ... can potentially influence QuReBot's performance.' That is a validity threat to causal attribution, not circularity. Self-citations in the paper (the code repository [19] and the related QELM elevator study [49]) are not load-bearing for the paper's conclusions.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an empirical ML comparison, so the main load-bearing inputs are hyperparameters, trained weights, and domain assumptions about simulation and oracle validity. No new physical entities are introduced. The largest uncharged assumption is that the QRC branch, rather than extra model capacity, causes the improvement.

free parameters (7)
  • quantum circuit depth = 10
    Chosen by hand in Section 5.4 to balance performance and computational cost; it controls how much input history spreads through the reservoir.
  • ancilla qubit count = 1
    One extra qubit is used in Section 5.4 to preserve information across partial measurements; the memory capacity of the reservoir depends on it.
  • reservoir random seed = fixed single seed
    Section 5.4 fixes one random seed for variational circuits; the results are not averaged over multiple reservoir initializations.
  • reservoir gate parameters = random, fixed (angles in [0,2π), coefficients in [-1,1])
    Section 4.2 samples rotation angles and Ising coefficients and keeps them fixed; these un-trained parameters define the reservoir dynamics.
  • washout time T = not reported in text
    Section 4.1 uses the last T states as input but the value of T is not stated in the paper; it may be in the repository and is required for replication.
  • training hyperparameters = learning rate 1e-4, batch size 32, epochs 500, early stopping patience 10
    Section 5.4 fixes these for all models; they affect convergence and final model selection, and no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • trained weights (projection, gating, readout) = not reported, fit to data
    Equations 10, 12, and 15 define W_proj, b_proj, W_sw, b_sw, W_out, b_out, which are fitted on training folds; these are the fitted parameters of the model.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard density-matrix and unitary-gate linear algebra (Equations 1, 2, 6) correctly describes the quantum reservoir used in the experiments.
    Background Section 2.1; no novel physics is claimed, so this is standard background rather than a contribution.
  • domain assumption A noisy or noiseless quantum reservoir circuit provides a valid nonlinear temporal feature map for multivariate robot state sequences.
    Invoked throughout Sections 2.2 and 4.2; the QRC-only experiments in Section 6.1 show this map alone does not support linear readout prediction on this data, so the assumption is weak.
  • domain assumption The echo state property and a suitable washout time T make reservoir states depend only on recent inputs, justifying the rewinding protocol.
    Section 2.2 relies on [20]; the value of T is not validated empirically in the paper.
  • domain assumption Qiskit Aer simulation faithfully represents the quantum reservoir, and results would transfer to real quantum hardware.
    All experiments run on the Aer simulator (Section 5.5); the authors list real-hardware noise as future work in Section 10.
  • domain assumption MSE of next-position prediction is a sufficient proxy for test oracle quality in regression testing.
    The paper never injects faults or runs regression tests; Section 5.6 equates oracle quality with predictive accuracy.
  • domain assumption The Gazebo/ROS 2 simulation of one PAL office environment is representative enough for general AMR conclusions.
    External validity is acknowledged in Section 8; one robot, one map, and 14,236 time steps limit generalization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Machine Learning-based Test Oracle for Autonomous Mobile Robots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O47ISM5X

@misc{pith2026250802407,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Machine Learning-based Test Oracle for Autonomous Mobile Robots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O47ISM5X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.02407}
}
read the original abstract

Robots are increasingly becoming part of our daily lives, interacting with both the environment and humans to perform their tasks. The software of such robots often undergoes upgrades, for example, to add new functionalities, fix bugs, or delete obsolete functionalities. As a result, regression testing of robot software becomes necessary. However, determining the expected correct behavior of robots (i.e., a test oracle) is challenging due to the potentially unknown environments in which the robots must operate. To address this challenge, machine learning (ML)-based test oracles present a viable solution. This paper reports on the development of a test oracle to support regression testing of autonomous mobile robots built by PAL Robotics (Spain), using quantum machine learning (QML), which enables faster training and the construction of more precise test oracles. Specifically, we propose a hybrid framework, QuReBot, that combines both quantum reservoir computing (QRC) and a simple neural network, inspired by residual connection, to predict the expected behavior of a robot. Results show that QRC alone fails to converge in our case, yielding high prediction error. In contrast, QuReBot converges and achieves 15% reduction of prediction error compared to the classical neural network baseline. Finally, we further examine QuReBot under different configurations and offer practical guidance on optimal settings to support future robot software testing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.02407 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of quantum circuit where |i⟩ denotes the i-th computational basis state in binary. Another important concept in quantum computing is entanglement, where two or more qubits share a single joint quantum state and depend on each other. For example, in the entangled two-qubit quantum state: |ψ⟩ = 1 √ 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Framework of Reservoir Computing (RC) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Framework of Quantum Reservoir Computing (QRC) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Tut Circuit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Restarting Protocol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Rewinding Protocol However, during implementation, the computational cost of this process is considerable. First, due to the probabilistic nature of the quantum system, multiple repetitions are necessary to approximate expectation values accurately. Second, the above f…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Overview of QuReBot research purposes, robots designed to assist in retail environments (e.g., for stocking goods), and Autonomous Mobile Robots (AMRs), which are widely used in various logistics applications [1]. Although the work presented in this paper can be applie…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Quantum Reservoir Circuits This RQ evaluates the performance of QuReBot under different configurations. Based on the results, we provide practical guidelines of optimal input features and prediction horizons to use for researchers and practitioners using QuReBot. 5.2 D…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: RQ1 – LMSE of QuReBot and the Skip-only model across different feature sets and horizons. The black dot is the average value of LMSE in each box. Answer to RQ1: The skip connection branch enhances prediction accuracy over QRC-only. Also, QuReBot outperforms Skip-only i…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: RQ2 – LMSE of QuReBot with various feature sets and horizons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    [Online; accessed 2025-07-31]

    PAL Robotics.https://pal-robotics.com/, 2025. [Online; accessed 2025-07-31]

    2025

  2. [2]

    A system identification based oracle for control-CPS software fault localization

    Zhijian He, Yao Chen, Enyan Huang, Qixin Wang, Yu Pei, and Haidong Yuan. A system identification based oracle for control-CPS software fault localization. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’19, pages 116–127. IEEE Press, 2019

    2019

  3. [3]

    Using machine learning to build test oracles: an industrial case study on elevators dispatching algorithms

    Aitor Arrieta, Jon Ayerdi, Miren Illarramendi, Aitor Agirre, Goiuria Sagardui, and Maite Arratibel. Using machine learning to build test oracles: an industrial case study on elevators dispatching algorithms. In2021 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automation of Software Test (AST), pages 30–39. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  4. [5]

    A study on challenges of testing robotic systems

    Afsoon Afzal, Claire Le Goues, Michael Hilton, and Christopher Steven Timperley. A study on challenges of testing robotic systems. In2020 IEEE 13th International Conference on Software Testing, Validation and Verification (ICST), pages 96–107, 2020

    2020

  5. [6]

    Using machine learning to generate test oracles: A systematic literature review

    Afonso Fontes and Gregory Gay. Using machine learning to generate test oracles: A systematic literature review. InProceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Test Oracles, pages 1–10, 2021

    2021

  6. [7]

    Reservoir computing and extreme learning machines for non-linear time-series data analysis.Neural networks, 38:76–89, 2013

    John B Butcher, David Verstraeten, Benjamin Schrauwen, Charles R Day, and Peter W Haycock. Reservoir computing and extreme learning machines for non-linear time-series data analysis.Neural networks, 38:76–89, 2013

    2013

  7. [8]

    Recent advances in physical reservoir computing: A review

    Gouhei Tanaka, Toshiyuki Yamane, Jean Benoit Héroux, Ryosho Nakane, Naoki Kanazawa, Seiji Takeda, Hidetoshi Numata, Daiju Nakano, and Akira Hirose. Recent advances in physical reservoir computing: A review. Neural Networks, 115:100–123, 2019. 15 Running Title for Header

    2019

  8. [9]

    Opportunities in quantum reservoir computing and extreme learning machines.Advanced Quantum Technologies, 4(8):2100027, 2021

    Pere Mujal, Rodrigo Martínez-Peña, Johannes Nokkala, Jorge García-Beni, Gian Luca Giorgi, Miguel C Soriano, and Roberta Zambrini. Opportunities in quantum reservoir computing and extreme learning machines.Advanced Quantum Technologies, 4(8):2100027, 2021

    2021

Show all 51 references
  1. [10]

    Harnessing disordered-ensemble quantum dynamics for machine learning

    Keisuke Fujii and Kohei Nakajima. Harnessing disordered-ensemble quantum dynamics for machine learning. Physical Review Applied, 8(2):024030, 2017

    2017

  2. [11]

    L. C. G. Govia, G. J. Ribeill, G. E. Rowlands, H. K. Krovi, and T. A. Ohki. Quantum reservoir computing with a single nonlinear oscillator.Phys. Rev. Res., 3:013077, Jan 2021

    2021

  3. [12]

    Infor- mation processing capacity of spin-based quantum reservoir computing systems.Cognitive Computation, pages 1–12, 2020

    Rodrigo Martínez-Peña, Johannes Nokkala, Gian Luca Giorgi, Roberta Zambrini, and Miguel C Soriano. Infor- mation processing capacity of spin-based quantum reservoir computing systems.Cognitive Computation, pages 1–12, 2020

    2020

  4. [13]

    Optimal quantum reservoir computing for the noisy intermediate-scale quantum era.Physical Review E, 106(4):L043301, 2022

    L Domingo, G Carlo, and F Borondo. Optimal quantum reservoir computing for the noisy intermediate-scale quantum era.Physical Review E, 106(4):L043301, 2022

    2022

  5. [14]

    Taking advantage of noise in quantum reservoir computing.Scientific Reports, 13(1):8790, 2023

    Laia Domingo, G Carlo, and F Borondo. Taking advantage of noise in quantum reservoir computing.Scientific Reports, 13(1):8790, 2023

    2023

  6. [15]

    User trajectory prediction in mobile wireless networks using quantum reservoir computing.IET Quantum Communication, 4(3):125–135, 2023

    Zoubeir Mlika, Soumaya Cherkaoui, Jean Frédéric Laprade, and Simon Corbeil-Letourneau. User trajectory prediction in mobile wireless networks using quantum reservoir computing.IET Quantum Communication, 4(3):125–135, 2023

    2023

  7. [16]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016

    2016

  8. [17]

    Wider or deeper: Revisiting the resnet model for visual recognition.Pattern recognition, 90:119–133, 2019

    Zifeng Wu, Chunhua Shen, and Anton Van Den Hengel. Wider or deeper: Revisiting the resnet model for visual recognition.Pattern recognition, 90:119–133, 2019

    2019

  9. [18]

    Attention is all you need.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  10. [19]

    [Online; accessed 2025-08-1]

    QuReBot.https://github.com/qiqihannah/qurebot/, 2025. [Online; accessed 2025-08-1]

    2025

  11. [20]

    Echo state networks are universal.Neural Networks, 108:495–508, 2018

    Lyudmila Grigoryeva and Juan-Pablo Ortega. Echo state networks are universal.Neural Networks, 108:495–508, 2018

    2018

  12. [21]

    TIAGo OMNI Base Robot

    PAL Robotics. TIAGo OMNI Base Robot. https://wiki.ros.org/Robots/TIAGo-OMNI-base . [Online; accessed 31-July-2025]

    2025

  13. [22]

    qubit-adapt-vqe: An adaptive algorithm for constructing hardware-efficient ansätze on a quantum processor.PRX Quantum, 2(2):020310, 2021

    Ho Lun Tang, VO Shkolnikov, George S Barron, Harper R Grimsley, Nicholas J Mayhall, Edwin Barnes, and Sophia E Economou. qubit-adapt-vqe: An adaptive algorithm for constructing hardware-efficient ansätze on a quantum processor.PRX Quantum, 2(2):020310, 2021

    2021

  14. [23]

    qiskit. qiskit. https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/docs/en/api/qiskit/qiskit.circuit.library. EfficientSU2, 2025. [Online; accessed 2025-07-31]

    2025

  15. [24]

    Quantum reservoir computing with repeated measurements on superconducting devices.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06706, 2023

    Toshiki Yasuda, Yudai Suzuki, Tomoyuki Kubota, Kohei Nakajima, Qi Gao, Wenlong Zhang, Satoshi Shi- mono, Hendra I Nurdin, and Naoki Yamamoto. Quantum reservoir computing with repeated measurements on superconducting devices.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06706, 2023

    arXiv

  16. [25]

    TIAGO OMNI Base ROS 2 Simulation

    PAL Robotics. TIAGO OMNI Base ROS 2 Simulation. https://github.com/pal-robotics/omni_base_ simulation. [Online; accessed 31-July-2025]

    2025

  17. [26]

    Fuchs, and Alexander J

    Ola Tangen Kulseng, Stanley Miao, Franz G. Fuchs, and Alexander J. Stasik. QuantumReservoirPy: A software package for time series prediction.J. Open Source Softw., 10(110):7994, 2025

    2025

  18. [27]

    Optimizing a quantum reservoir computer for time series prediction.Scientific reports, 10(1):14687, 2020

    Aki Kutvonen, Keisuke Fujii, and Takahiro Sagawa. Optimizing a quantum reservoir computer for time series prediction.Scientific reports, 10(1):14687, 2020

    2020

  19. [28]

    Exploring quantumness in quantum reservoir computing

    Niclas Götting, Frederik Lohof, and Christopher Gies. Exploring quantumness in quantum reservoir computing. Physical Review A, 108(5):052427, 2023

    2023

  20. [29]

    Testing, validation, and verification of robotic and autonomous systems: a systematic review.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 32(2):1–61, 2023

    Hugo Araujo, Mohammad Reza Mousavi, and Mahsa Varshosaz. Testing, validation, and verification of robotic and autonomous systems: a systematic review.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 32(2):1–61, 2023

    2023

  21. [30]

    Model-based testing of autonomous robots using testit.Journal of Reliable Intelligent Environments, 6(1):15–30, 2020

    Gert Kanter and Jüri Vain. Model-based testing of autonomous robots using testit.Journal of Reliable Intelligent Environments, 6(1):15–30, 2020

    2020

  22. [31]

    Metamorphic model-based testing of autonomous systems

    Mikael Lindvall, Adam Porter, Gudjon Magnusson, and Christoph Schulze. Metamorphic model-based testing of autonomous systems. In2017 IEEE/ACM 2nd International Workshop on Metamorphic Testing (MET), pages 35–41. IEEE, 2017. 16 Running Title for Header

    2017

  23. [32]

    Epitester: Testing autonomous vehicles with epigenetic algorithm and attention mechanism.IEEE Trans

    Chengjie Lu, Shaukat Ali, and Tao Yue. Epitester: Testing autonomous vehicles with epigenetic algorithm and attention mechanism.IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 50(10):2614–2632, October 2024

    2024

  24. [33]

    Christopher Steven Timperley, Afsoon Afzal, Deborah S Katz, Jam Marcos Hernandez, and Claire Le Goues. Crashing simulated planes is cheap: Can simulation detect robotics bugs early? In2018 IEEE 11th International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICS...

    2018

  25. [34]

    Can robot navigation bugs be found in simulation? an exploratory study

    Thierry Sotiropoulos, Hélène Waeselynck, Jérémie Guiochet, and Félix Ingrand. Can robot navigation bugs be found in simulation? an exploratory study. In2017 IEEE International conference on software quality, reliability and security (QRS), pages 150–159. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  26. [35]

    Towards integrating formal verification of autonomous robots with battery prognostics and health management

    Xingyu Zhao, Matt Osborne, Jenny Lantair, Valentin Robu, David Flynn, Xiaowei Huang, Michael Fisher, Fabio Papacchini, and Angelo Ferrando. Towards integrating formal verification of autonomous robots with battery prognostics and health management. InInternational Conference o...

    2019

  27. [36]

    A corroborative approach to verification and validation of human–robot teams.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 39(1):73–99, 2020

    Matt Webster, David Western, Dejanira Araiza-Illan, Clare Dixon, Kerstin Eder, Michael Fisher, and Anthony G Pipe. A corroborative approach to verification and validation of human–robot teams.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 39(1):73–99, 2020

    2020

  28. [37]

    ROSRV: Runtime verification for robots

    Jeff Huang, Cansu Erdogan, Yi Zhang, Brandon Moore, Qingzhou Luo, Aravind Sundaresan, and Grigore Rosu. ROSRV: Runtime verification for robots. InInternational Conference on Runtime Verification, pages 247–254. Springer, 2014

    2014

  29. [38]

    Combining model checking and runtime verification for safe robotics

    Ankush Desai, Tommaso Dreossi, and Sanjit A Seshia. Combining model checking and runtime verification for safe robotics. InInternational Conference on Runtime Verification, pages 172–189. Springer, 2017

    2017

  30. [39]

    Performance regression testing and run-time verification of components in robotics systems.Advanced Robotics, 31(22):1177–1192, 2017

    Johannes Wienke and Sebastian Wrede. Performance regression testing and run-time verification of components in robotics systems.Advanced Robotics, 31(22):1177–1192, 2017

    2017

  31. [40]

    Model-based regression testing of autonomous robots

    Dávid Honfi, Gábor Molnár, Zoltán Micskei, and István Majzik. Model-based regression testing of autonomous robots. InInternational SDL Forum, pages 119–135. Springer, 2017

    2017

  32. [41]

    A machine learning approach to generate test oracles

    Ronyérison Braga, Pedro Santos Neto, Ricardo Rabêlo, José Santiago, and Matheus Souza. A machine learning approach to generate test oracles. InProceedings of the XXXII Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering, SBES ’18, pages 142–151, New York, NY , USA, 2018. Association f...

    2018

  33. [42]

    A classifier-based test oracle for embedded software

    Farshad Gholami, Niousha Attar, Hassan Haghighi, Mojtaba Vahidi Asl, Meysam Valueian, and Saina Mohamad- yari. A classifier-based test oracle for embedded software. In2018 Real-Time and Embedded Systems and Technologies (RTEST), pages 104–111. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  34. [43]

    Using semi-supervised learning for predicting metamorphic relations

    Bonnie Hardin and Upulee Kanewala. Using semi-supervised learning for predicting metamorphic relations. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Metamorphic Testing, pages 14–17, 2018

    2018

  35. [44]

    RBF-MLMR: A multi-label metamor- phic relation prediction approach using RBF neural network.IEEE Access, 5:21791–21805, 2017

    Pengcheng Zhang, Xuewu Zhou, Patrizio Pelliccione, and Hareton Leung. RBF-MLMR: A multi-label metamor- phic relation prediction approach using RBF neural network.IEEE Access, 5:21791–21805, 2017

    2017

  36. [45]

    Automated identification of metamorphic test scenarios for an ocean-modeling application

    Dilip J Hiremath, Martin Claus, Wilhelm Hasselbring, and Willi Rath. Automated identification of metamorphic test scenarios for an ocean-modeling application. In2020 IEEE International Conference On Artificial Intelligence Testing (AITest), pages 62–63. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  37. [46]

    Performing software test oracle based on deep neural network with fuzzy inference system

    Amin Karimi Monsefi, Behzad Zakeri, Sanaz Samsam, and Morteza Khashehchi. Performing software test oracle based on deep neural network with fuzzy inference system. In Lucio Grandinetti, Seyedeh Leili Mirtaheri, and Reza Shahbazian, editors,High-Performance Computing and Big Da...

    2019

  38. [47]

    Automatic test oracle based on probabilistic neural networks

    Ran Zhang, Ya-wen Wang, and Ming-zhe Zhang. Automatic test oracle based on probabilistic neural networks. In Recent Developments in Intelligent Computing, Communication and Devices: Proceedings of ICCD 2017, pages 437–445. Springer, 2018

    2017

  39. [48]

    Aitor Gartziandia, Aitor Arrieta, Jon Ayerdi, Miren Illarramendi, Aitor Agirre, Goiuria Sagardui, and Maite Arratibel. Machine learning-based test oracles for performance testing of cyber-physical systems: An industrial case study on elevators dispatching algorithms.Journal of...

    2022

  40. [49]

    Application of quantum extreme learning machines for QoS prediction of elevators’ software in an industrial context

    Xinyi Wang, Shaukat Ali, Aitor Arrieta, Paolo Arcaini, and Maite Arratibel. Application of quantum extreme learning machines for QoS prediction of elevators’ software in an industrial context. InCompanion Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on the Foundations ...

    2024

  41. [50]

    Boosting computational power through spatial multiplexing in quantum reservoir computing.Physical Review Applied, 11(3):034021, 2019

    Kohei Nakajima, Keisuke Fujii, Makoto Negoro, Kosuke Mitarai, and Masahiro Kitagawa. Boosting computational power through spatial multiplexing in quantum reservoir computing.Physical Review Applied, 11(3):034021, 2019. 17 Running Title for Header

    2019

  42. [51]

    Natural quantum reservoir computing for temporal information processing.Scientific Reports, 12, 01 2022

    Yudai Suzuki, Qi Gao, Ken Pradel, Kenji Yasuoka, and Naoki Yamamoto. Natural quantum reservoir computing for temporal information processing.Scientific Reports, 12, 01 2022

    2022

  43. [52]

    Configured quantum reservoir computing for multi-task machine learning.Science Bulletin, 68(20):2321–2329, 2023

    Wei Xia, Jie Zou, Xingze Qiu, Feng Chen, Bing Zhu, Chunhe Li, Dong-Ling Deng, and Xiaopeng Li. Configured quantum reservoir computing for multi-task machine learning.Science Bulletin, 68(20):2321–2329, 2023. 18

    2023

Pith tools

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