Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 92 references

Optimizer-Dependent Generalization Bound for Quantum Neural Networks

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A data re-uploading quantum neural network trained by SGD has a generalization error bound controlled by $O((\eta K\|M\|_\infty)^T)/m$, making learning rate and parameter count the key knobs for stable training.

desk verdict Central stability bound doesn't follow from the proof: recursion yields (1+2ηC2K‖M‖∞)^T, not (ηK‖M‖∞)^T, so the headline stable-training guideline is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16228 v1 pith:OYWM4CMI submitted 2025-01-27 quant-ph

Chenghong Zhu , Hongshun Yao , Yingjian Liu , Xin Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6868Q12 PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords quantumneuralnetworksgeneralizationbounduniformstabilitystochasticgradientdescentcombsdatare-uploadingparameter-shiftrulelearningrate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to explain when a quantum neural network will generalize to unseen data, treating the network not through its hypothesis space but through the stability of the training algorithm. The central claim is that a data re-uploading QNN trained with stochastic gradient descent is $\beta_m$-uniformly stable with $\beta_m \le LD\|M\|_\infty O((\eta K\|M\|_\infty)^T)/m$, where $L$ is the number of data re-uploadings, $D$ the data dimension, $K$ the number of trainable parameters, $\eta$ the learning rate, and $\|M\|_\infty$ the spectral norm of the measurement. From this stability, the paper derives a generalization gap bound that decays like $O(1/\sqrt{m})$ in the sample size and grows with model expressivity. The point of the result is practical guidance: because the stability term contains $(\eta K\|M\|_\infty)^T$, selecting a learning rate inversely proportional to the number of trainable gates keeps training stable and controls overfitting.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the representation of a data re-uploading QNN as a sequential quantum comb: the output function $f(\theta,x,M)$ is written as a trace of link products of the channel-state representations of the trainable layers, the data-encoding unitaries, the input state, and the measurement. This separation lets the paper bound the difference $|f(\theta_{S,t},x,M)-f(\theta_{S_i,t},x,M)|$ by a sum of parameter differences times $\|M\|_\infty$, using a telescoping unitary bound and the parameter-shift rule for derivatives. The recursion that yields $\beta_m$ is the classical SGD stability argument: at each of the $T$ iterations, with probability $(m-1)/m$ the selected sample agrees between the two datasets and the parameter divergence only grows through the smoothness constant, while with probability $1/m$ the replaced sample injects an additional $O(LD)$ term; unrolling the recursion produces the factor $O((\eta K\|M\|_\infty)^T)$.

What would settle it

Train two data re-uploading QNNs with identical $L$, $D$, $K$, $\eta$, and measurement, one with only single-qubit Pauli rotation parameters and a second with one parameterized two-qubit entangling gate, and measure the maximum change in output when a single training point is replaced. If the second network's stability constant departs from the $LD\|M\|_\infty O((\eta K\|M\|_\infty)^T)/m$ form, the 'without loss of generality' gate-structure assumption is violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that the generalization gap of a data re-uploading QNN can be controlled by a uniform-stability analysis of SGD rather than by counting the size of the hypothesis space. Theorem 3 states that after $T$ SGD iterations an $L$-layer data re-uploading QNN is $\beta_m$-uniformly stable with $\beta_m \le LD\|M\|_\infty O((\eta K\|M\|_\infty)^T)/m$, and Corollary 4 converts this into a high-probability bound on $\mathbb{E}_{\mathrm{SGD}}[R(A_S)-\hat R(A_S)]$: the leading term is $LD\|M\|_\infty O((\eta K\|M\|_\infty)^T)/m$ plus the standard $O(\sqrt{\log(1/\delta)/(2m)})$ term. The bound's novelty is that the optimizer's hyperparameters enter explicitly, so the same ansatz can generalize well or poorly depending on how $\eta$, $K$, and $T$ are chosen. An appendix extends the same argument to local depolarizing noise, where each noise-affected gate contributes a $(1-p)$ prefactor.

Load-bearing premise

The bound rests on assuming that every trainable gate is a single-qubit Pauli rotation (so the parameter-shift rule and the telescoping unitary bound apply) and that each data coordinate is bounded in $[0,2\pi]$ to control the replacement term; if either assumption is dropped, the stability recursion that produces $O((\eta K\|M\|_\infty)^T)$ no longer holds in the stated form.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Generalization improves at the usual rate $O(1/\sqrt{m})$ with more training samples, so the bound is non-vacuous only when the stability term decays faster than $1/\sqrt{m}$.
  • The linear dependence on $L$ and $D$ quantifies an expressivity–generalization trade-off: more data re-uploadings or higher-dimensional inputs increase the worst-case generalization gap under fixed training data.
  • To keep the exponential factor from exploding, the product $\eta K \|M\|_\infty$ should stay below $1$; the paper recommends choosing $\eta \sim O(1/K)$ for a fixed number of gates, or $K \sim O(1/\eta)$ for a fixed learning rate.
  • Under local depolarizing noise, each noise-affected gate contributes a $(1-p)$ prefactor, so the same stability analysis carries over and predicts that noise can suppress the parameter-divergence term.
  • Empirically, increasing $L$ from 2 to 16 or raising $\eta$ from 0.01 to 0.1 widens the measured train-test gap on the three benchmark datasets, consistent with the exponential dependence on $T$.
  • The proof of Lemma S4 invokes without loss of generality that every trainable gate is a single-qubit Pauli rotation; extending the ansatz to parameterized two-qubit gates would change the constants in the stability bound, and the recursion as written would need a different derivative bound.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A directly testable practical consequence not stated in the paper is that monitoring the generalization gap while sweeping $\eta K\|M\|_\infty$ should reveal a sharp transition near value 1; this could serve as a cheap diagnostic for when a QNN is overparameterized for a given learning rate.
  • The quantum-comb formulation suggests a semidefinite-programming search over comb structures that minimize the stability constant while preserving expressivity, a direction the paper only mentions for future work.
  • The bound is stated for SGD; it does not automatically transfer to adaptive optimizers such as Adam, since per-coordinate learning rates break the uniform recursion, so one would expect a different stability analysis for those optimizers.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a stability-based generalization bound for data re-uploading quantum neural networks (QNNs). It connects QNNs to quantum combs, proves uniform stability of SGD-trained QNNs (Theorem 3), and derives a generalization gap bound (Corollary 4) that depends on the number of trainable parameters K, data re-uploading times L, data dimension D, the measurement operator norm, and optimizer hyperparameters. The advertised central result is an exponential decay in the number of iterations T under the condition eta*K*||M||_inf < 1, giving a 'stable training' guideline. Numerical experiments on Breast Cancer, MNIST, and Fashion MNIST vary L, eta, and m and report qualitative agreement with the theoretical trends.

Significance. The quantum-comb perspective and the aim of making generalization bounds optimizer-dependent are attractive; if Theorem 3 were correct, the paper would provide practical design rules for QNN training. However, the central theorem is not supported by the proof: the recursion derived in Appendix 10 yields a factor (1 + 2*eta*C2*K*||M||_inf)^T, which grows with T, rather than the stated (eta*K*||M||_inf)^T, which decays when eta*K*||M||_inf < 1. This invalidates Corollary 4 and the stable-training guideline in Section 3.3. The quantum-comb formalism itself appears sound, and the numerical experiments are reasonable, but they do not quantitatively test the claimed exponential dependence. As stated, the main theoretical contribution cannot be credited.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix 10, Eq. (S36)-(S38)] The recursion derived in the proof is sum_j E|Delta theta^j_{t+1}| <= (1 + 2*eta*C2*K*||M||_inf) * sum_j E|Delta theta^j_t| + 8*pi*eta*C2*K*||M||_inf*L*D/m. Solving it gives sum_j E|Delta theta^j_T| <= 8*pi*eta*C2*K*||M||_inf*L*D/m * sum_{t=1}^T (1 + 2*eta*C2*K*||M||_inf)^{t-1}, so the resulting stability bound is beta_m <= (L*D*||M||_inf/m) * O((1 + 2*eta*C2*K*||M||_inf)^T). The theorem's stated O((eta*K*||M||_inf)^T) does not follow from this calculation. For the recommended regime eta*K*||M||_inf < 1, e.g. eta=0.01, K=16, ||M||_inf=1, C2=1, T=100, the derived bound has base 1.32 and grows to roughly 10^12, whereas the stated factor is 0.16^100, roughly 10^-80. Corollary 4 and the stable-training guideline in Section 3.3 rely on the incorrect exponential expression, so this is a load-bearing error.
  2. [Appendix 7, Lemma S1, Eq. (S5)] The proof uses the inequality cos(theta) >= 1 - 2*theta^2 to conclude sqrt(2 - 2*cos((alpha - beta)/2)) <= |alpha - beta|. This cosine inequality is false for |theta| > 1. The desired final bound is actually true by the standard inequality 1 - cos(x) <= x^2/2, so the step is repairable, but the proof as written is incorrect. More substantively, Lemma S1 is stated only for parameterized gates e^{-i*alpha*P/2} with single-qubit Pauli P, and Lemma S4 then asserts 'without loss of generality, assuming all parameters are located on single Pauli rotations.' This is not WLOG for a general ansatz containing multi-qubit or non-Pauli parameterized gates; the telescoping argument of Lemma S1 and the parameter-shift identities used in Lemmas S5 and S6 require this specific gate structure. The theorem should either be explicitly restricted to ansatze built from single-qubit Pauli rotations with fixed gates, or the proof must be generalized and justified for wider gate families.
  3. [Theorem 3 proof, Appendix 10] The proof contains the sentence 'Without loss of generality, we set x^(k) in [0,2pi],' which imposes an unstated assumption on the data distribution. The subsequent bound |Delta x_i^k| <= 4*pi is what produces the factor L*D in the stability bound. If the data are not bounded in this way or are not explicitly preprocessed into this range, Theorem 3 does not hold. This assumption should be stated in the theorem and in Corollary 4, since it affects the claimed dependence on D and L.
  4. [Appendix 10, Eq. (S32)] The displayed equality bounding E|Delta theta^j_{t+1}| is not an equality; the passage from the update difference to the sum of the absolute gradient differences requires the triangle inequality and yields an upper bound, not an equality. This is formally incorrect as written, although it is repairable and does not by itself change the fact that the resulting recursion has base 1 + 2*eta*C2*K*||M||_inf.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2, proof sketch] The short-hand notation '|Delta x^(j)| = x^(j) - x'(j)' omits the absolute value; it should read |Delta x^(j)| = |x^(j) - x'^(j)|. The same issue appears in Lemma S6.
  2. [Section 4] The text refers to 'Theorem 4' when discussing the generalization gap results; in the main text Theorem 4 has not yet been defined (the appendix's noisy-stability theorem uses that number). The intended reference is likely Corollary 4.
  3. [Section 4, Additional Remarks] The authors acknowledge that the bound continues to increase with training while the observed generalization gap converges in several simulations. This substantially limits the claimed numerical validation and deserves a more prominent discussion, since the figures are otherwise presented as supporting the theorem.
  4. [Appendix 7, Lemma S1] The notation U(theta) := product_{k=1}^K U_k e^{-i*alpha^(k)*P_k/2} V_{K+1} should specify the ordering of the product, as the proof's telescoping assumes a definite order.
  5. [Throughout] There are minor typos, including 'presense' in Section 2.2 and 'numer of layers' in Figure S4's caption. These do not affect the technical content but should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the generalization bound is derived from explicit Lipschitz/smoothness assumptions, the quantum-comb/Choi representation, and the classical stability–generalization theorem; no conclusion is used as an input and no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity. Theorem 3's stability bound is obtained by bounding parameter divergence under SGD using Lemma S4 (output-difference bound via Choi representation), Lemma S5/S6 (gradient-difference bounds via Lipschitz/smoothness and parameter-shift rules), and a recursion over T iterations; the stability-to-generalization conversion in Corollary 4 is the standard external theorem S2 from Elisseeff et al. [57]. No parameter is fitted to data, no data subset is used to define a quantity then reported as a predicted quantity, and the central bound does not presuppose its own conclusion. The quantum-comb reformulation (Proposition 1, Corollary 2/Proposition 2) is a bookkeeping representation, not an assumption equivalent to the target bound. Self-citations appear only for supporting facts such as expressivity/universality of data-reuploading QNNs ([15,25]), and are not load-bearing for the stability theorem; the comb technical lemmas cite the external framework of Chiribella et al. [64,84]. Two substantive concerns exist but they are correctness issues, not circularity: the recursion in Eq. (S36)–(S37) yields a base (1 + 2ηC2 K ||M||_∞), not (ηK ||M||_∞), so the stated exponential form and the 'stable training' guideline do not follow from the proof as written; and the 'without loss of generality' restriction to single-qubit Pauli rotations in Lemma S4 is not truly WLOG for general ansatze. These are mathematical gaps in the derivation, not instances of the conclusion being used as an input or of a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

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

No parameters are fitted to data. The bound contains unspecified constants C1, C2, and M that depend on the loss function, but they are assumed, not fitted. The main domain assumptions are the Lipschitz smoothness of the loss, the boundedness of data coordinates, and the single-qubit Pauli rotation structure of the ansatz. Quantum combs are an existing formalism, not an invented entity.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The loss function ell is Lipschitz continuous and smooth with constants C1 and C2.
    Used throughout the proof; stated in Section 3.2 and Definition 2 in Appendix 7.
  • domain assumption Data components x^(j) are bounded in [0,2pi], leading to |Delta x| <= 4pi.
    Invoked in the proof of Theorem 3 in Appendix 10 to bound the replacement-induced data difference; not stated as a separate assumption in the main text.
  • domain assumption All trainable gates are single-qubit Pauli rotations.
    Assumed 'without loss of generality' in the proof of Lemma S4 (Appendix 10); required for Lemma S1 and the parameter-shift-rule bounds in Lemmas S5 and S6.
  • domain assumption The loss is bounded by a constant M.
    Used to apply Theorem S2 (the stability-generalization bound) from the literature; standard in uniform stability analysis.
  • standard math Quantum combs and the link product satisfy the standard properties of Choi-Jamiolkowski isomorphism.
    Fundamental to the output representation in Proposition 1 and Corollary 2; cited to reference [84].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimizer-Dependent Generalization Bound for Quantum Neural Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OYWM4CMI

@misc{pith2026250116228,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimizer-Dependent Generalization Bound for Quantum Neural Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OYWM4CMI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16228}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum neural networks (QNNs) play a pivotal role in addressing complex tasks within quantum machine learning, analogous to classical neural networks in deep learning. Ensuring consistent performance across diverse datasets is crucial for understanding and optimizing QNNs in both classical and quantum machine learning tasks, but remains a challenge as QNN's generalization properties have not been fully explored. In this paper, we investigate the generalization properties of QNNs through the lens of learning algorithm stability, circumventing the need to explore the entire hypothesis space and providing insights into how classical optimizers influence QNN performance. By establishing a connection between QNNs and quantum combs, we examine the general behaviors of QNN models from a quantum information theory perspective. Leveraging the uniform stability of the stochastic gradient descent algorithm, we propose a generalization error bound determined by the number of trainable parameters, data uploading times, dataset dimension, and classical optimizer hyperparameters. Numerical experiments validate this comprehensive understanding of QNNs and align with our theoretical conclusions. As the first exploration into understanding the generalization capability of QNNs from a unified perspective of design and training, our work offers practical insights for applying QNNs in quantum machine learning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16228 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our work. (a) We investigate the relationship between QNNs and quantum combs, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. This ansatz template describes a quantum circuit with N qubits and L layers. Each layer is structured into two distinct blocks: a trainable block and an encoding block, represented in blue and red, respectively. The trainable blocks consist of repeated Ry rotation gates and CX gates. In contrast, each encoding block comprises an n-tensor product of Ry(x (i) ) gates, designed to encode an D-dimensional classical data… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Generalization gap estimation with the varies on the number of data re-uploading change [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Generalization gap estimation with the varies on the learning rate η ∈ [0.01, 0.05, 0.1] for three datasets, with the error bar representing the statistical uncertainty in experiments. (a), (b), and (c) show the loss of various sampled classical datasets. This figure i…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Peter W. Shor. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM Journal on Computing, 26(5):1484–1509, October 1997

    1997

  2. [2]

    Universal quantum simulators

    Seth Lloyd. Universal quantum simulators. Science, 273(5278):1073–1078, 1996

    1996

  3. [3]

    Toward the first quantum simulation with quantum speedup

    Andrew M Childs, Dmitri Maslov, Yunseong Nam, Neil J Ross, and Yuan Su. Toward the first quantum simulation with quantum speedup. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115(38):9456–9461, 2018

    2018

  4. [4]

    Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor

    Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando GSL Brandao, David A Buell, et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature, 574(7779):505–510, 2019

    2019

  5. [5]

    Quantum computational advantage using photons.Science, 370(6523):1460–1463, 2020

    Han-Sen Zhong, Hui Wang, Yu-Hao Deng, Ming-Cheng Chen, Li-Chao Peng, Yi-Han Luo, Jian Qin, Dian Wu, Xing Ding, Yi Hu, et al. Quantum computational advantage using photons.Science, 370(6523):1460–1463, 2020

    2020

  6. [6]

    Strong quantum computational advantage using a superconducting quantum processor

    Yulin Wu, Wan-Su Bao, Sirui Cao, Fusheng Chen, Ming-Cheng Chen, Xiawei Chen, Tung-Hsun Chung, Hui Deng, Yajie Du, Daojin Fan, et al. Strong quantum computational advantage using a superconducting quantum processor. Physical review letters, 127(18):180501, 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    Quantum machine learning

    Jacob Biamonte, Peter Wittek, Nicola Pancotti, Patrick Rebentrost, Nathan Wiebe, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum machine learning. Nature, 549(7671):195–202, 2017

    2017

  8. [8]

    Analyzing Convergence in Quantum Neural Networks: Deviations from Neural Tangent Kernels

    Xuchen You, Shouvanik Chakrabarti, Boyang Chen, and Xiaodi Wu. Analyzing Conver- gence in Quantum Neural Networks: Deviations from Neural Tangent Kernels. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.14844, 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    GraphQNTK: Quantum Neural Tangent Kernel for Graph Data

    Yehui Tang and Junchi Yan. GraphQNTK: Quantum Neural Tangent Kernel for Graph Data. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:6104–6118, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Repre- sentation learning via quantum neural tangent kernels

    Junyu Liu, Francesco Tacchino, Jennifer R Glick, Liang Jiang, and Antonio Mezzacapo. Repre- sentation learning via quantum neural tangent kernels. PRX Quantum, 3(3):30323, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Generalization in quantum machine learning from few training data

    Matthias C Caro, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Marco Cerezo, Kunal Sharma, Andrew Sornborger, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J Coles. Generalization in quantum machine learning from few training data. Nature communications, 13(1):4919, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning

    M Cerezo, Guillaume Verdon, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J Coles. Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning. Nature Computational Science , 2(9):567–576, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Provably efficient machine learning for quantum many-body problems.Science, 377(6613):eabk3333, 2022

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, Giacomo Torlai, Victor V Albert, and John Preskill. Provably efficient machine learning for quantum many-body problems.Science, 377(6613):eabk3333, 2022

    2022

  6. [15]

    Power and limitations of single-qubit native quantum neural networks

    Zhan Yu, Hongshun Yao, Mujin Li, and Xin Wang. Power and limitations of single-qubit native quantum neural networks. In 36th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2022), 2022

    2022

  7. [16]

    Recent advances for quantum neural networks in generative learning

    Jinkai Tian, Xiaoyu Sun, Yuxuan Du, Shanshan Zhao, Qing Liu, Kaining Zhang, Wei Yi, Wan- rong Huang, Chaoyue Wang, and Xingyao Wu. Recent advances for quantum neural networks in generative learning. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2023. 12

    2023

  8. [17]

    Sublinear quantum algorithms for training linear and kernel-based classifiers

    Tongyang Li, Shouvanik Chakrabarti, and Xiaodi Wu. Sublinear quantum algorithms for training linear and kernel-based classifiers. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 3815–

  9. [18]

    Concentration of Data Encoding in Pa- rameterized Quantum Circuits

    Guangxi Li, Ruilin Ye, Xuanqiang Zhao, and Xin Wang. Concentration of Data Encoding in Pa- rameterized Quantum Circuits. In 36th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2022), 2022

    2022

  10. [19]

    Fiderer, Hendrik Poulsen Nautrup, Jonas M

    Sofiene Jerbi, Lukas J. Fiderer, Hendrik Poulsen Nautrup, Jonas M. Kübler, Hans J. Briegel, and Vedran Dunjko. Quantum machine learning beyond kernel methods. Nature Communications, 14(1):517, jan 2023

    2023

  11. [20]

    Recent advances for quantum classifiers.Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 65(2):220301, feb 2022

    Weikang Li and Dong-Ling Deng. Recent advances for quantum classifiers.Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 65(2):220301, feb 2022

    2022

  12. [21]

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Michael Broughton, Jordan Cotler, Sitan Chen, Jerry Li, Masoud Mohseni, Hartmut Neven, Ryan Babbush, Richard Kueng, John Preskill, and Jarrod R. McClean. Quantum advantage in learning from experiments. Science, 376(6598):1182–1186, jun 2022

    2022

  13. [22]

    Adrián Pérez-Salinas, Alba Cervera-Lierta, Elies Gil-Fuster, and José I. Latorre. Data re-uploading for a universal quantum classifier. Quantum, 4:226, February 2020

    2020

  14. [23]

    Input redundancy for parameterized quantum circuits

    Francisco Javier Gil Vidal and Dirk Oliver Theis. Input redundancy for parameterized quantum circuits. Frontiers in Physics, 8:297, 2020

    2020

  15. [24]

    Forn-Díaz, and José I

    Adrián Pérez-Salinas, David López-Núñez, Artur García-Sáez, P. Forn-Díaz, and José I. Latorre. One qubit as a universal approximant. Phys. Rev. A, 104:012405, Jul 2021

    2021

  16. [25]

    Power and limitations of single-qubit native quantum neural networks

    Zhan Yu, Hongshun Yao, Mujin Li, and Xin Wang. Power and limitations of single-qubit native quantum neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27810–27823, 2022

    2022

  17. [26]

    Parametrized quantum circuits and their approximation capacities in the context of quantum machine learning, 2023

    Alberto Manzano, David Dechant, Jordi Tura, and Vedran Dunjko. Parametrized quantum circuits and their approximation capacities in the context of quantum machine learning, 2023

    2023

  18. [27]

    Quantum machine learning beyond kernel methods

    Sofiene Jerbi, Lukas J Fiderer, Hendrik Poulsen Nautrup, Jonas M Kübler, Hans J Briegel, and Vedran Dunjko. Quantum machine learning beyond kernel methods. Nature Communications, 14(1):517, 2023

    2023

  19. [28]

    Provable advantage of parameterized quantum circuit in function approximation, 2023

    Zhan Yu, Qiuhao Chen, Yuling Jiao, Yinan Li, Xiliang Lu, Xin Wang, and Jerry Zhijian Yang. Provable advantage of parameterized quantum circuit in function approximation, 2023

    2023

  20. [29]

    Kawaguchi, Y

    K. Kawaguchi, Y . Bengio, and L. Kaelbling. Generalization in Deep Learning , page 112–148. Cambridge University Press, December 2022

    2022

  21. [30]

    Efficient measure for the expressivity of variational quantum algorithms

    Yuxuan Du, Zhuozhuo Tu, Xiao Yuan, and Dacheng Tao. Efficient measure for the expressivity of variational quantum algorithms. Physical Review Letters, 128(8), February 2022

    2022

  22. [31]

    The nature of statistical learning theory

    Vladimir Vapnik. The nature of statistical learning theory . Springer science & business media, 2013

    2013

  23. [32]

    Caro, Hsin-Yuan Huang, M

    Matthias C. Caro, Hsin-Yuan Huang, M. Cerezo, Kunal Sharma, Andrew Sornborger, Lukasz Cin- cio, and Patrick J. Coles. Generalization in quantum machine learning from few training data. Nature Communications, 13(1), August 2022

    2022

  24. [33]

    Problem-dependent power of quantum neural networks on multiclass classification

    Yuxuan Du, Yibo Yang, Dacheng Tao, and Min-Hsiu Hsieh. Problem-dependent power of quantum neural networks on multiclass classification. Physical Review Letters, 131(14):140601, 2023

    2023

  25. [34]

    The power of quantum neural networks

    Amira Abbas, David Sutter, Christa Zoufal, Aurélien Lucchi, Alessio Figalli, and Stefan Woerner. The power of quantum neural networks. Nature Computational Science, 1(6):403–409, 2021. 13

    2021

  26. [35]

    A scale-dependent notion of effective dimension, 2020

    Oksana Berezniuk, Alessio Figalli, Raffaele Ghigliazza, and Kharen Musaelian. A scale-dependent notion of effective dimension, 2020

    2020

  27. [36]

    Effective dimension of machine learning models, 2021

    Amira Abbas, David Sutter, Alessio Figalli, and Stefan Woerner. Effective dimension of machine learning models, 2021

    2021

  28. [37]

    Structural risk minimization for quantum linear classifiers

    Casper Gyurik, Dyon Vreumingen, van, and Vedran Dunjko. Structural risk minimization for quantum linear classifiers. Quantum, 7:893, January 2023

    2023

  29. [38]

    On the uniform convergence of relative frequencies of events to their probabilities

    Vladimir N Vapnik and A Ya Chervonenkis. On the uniform convergence of relative frequencies of events to their probabilities. In Measures of complexity: festschrift for alexey chervonenkis, pages 11–30. Springer, 2015

    2015

  30. [39]

    Caro, Elies Gil-Fuster, Johannes Jakob Meyer, Jens Eisert, and Ryan Sweke

    Matthias C. Caro, Elies Gil-Fuster, Johannes Jakob Meyer, Jens Eisert, and Ryan Sweke. Encoding- dependent generalization bounds for parametrized quantum circuits. Quantum, 5:582, November 2021

    2021

  31. [40]

    Rademacher complexity of noisy quantum circuits, 2021

    Kaifeng Bu, Dax Enshan Koh, Lu Li, Qingxian Luo, and Yaobo Zhang. Rademacher complexity of noisy quantum circuits, 2021

    2021

  32. [41]

    Statistical complexity of quantum circuits

    Kaifeng Bu, Dax Enshan Koh, Lu Li, Qingxian Luo, and Yaobo Zhang. Statistical complexity of quantum circuits. Phys. Rev. A, 105:062431, Jun 2022

    2022

  33. [42]

    Theoretical error performance analysis for variational quantum circuit based functional regression

    Jun Qi, Chao-Han Huck Yang, Pin-Yu Chen, and Min-Hsiu Hsieh. Theoretical error performance analysis for variational quantum circuit based functional regression. npj Quantum Information , 9(1):4, 2023

    2023

  34. [43]

    Rademacher and gaussian complexities: Risk bounds and structural results

    Peter L Bartlett and Shahar Mendelson. Rademacher and gaussian complexities: Risk bounds and structural results. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3(Nov):463–482, 2002

    2002

  35. [44]

    Generalization in quantum machine learn- ing: A quantum information standpoint

    Leonardo Banchi, Jason Pereira, and Stefano Pirandola. Generalization in quantum machine learn- ing: A quantum information standpoint. PRX Quantum, 2:040321, Nov 2021

    2021

  36. [45]

    On the expressibility and overfitting of quantum circuit learning

    Chih-Chieh Chen, Masaya Watabe, Kodai Shiba, Masaru Sogabe, Katsuyoshi Sakamoto, and Tomah Sogabe. On the expressibility and overfitting of quantum circuit learning. ACM Trans- actions on Quantum Computing, 2(2), jul 2021

    2021

  37. [46]

    The inductive bias of quantum kernels

    Jonas Kübler, Simon Buchholz, and Bernhard Schölkopf. The inductive bias of quantum kernels. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:12661–12673, 2021

    2021

  38. [47]

    Learnability of quantum neural networks

    Yuxuan Du, Min-Hsiu Hsieh, Tongliang Liu, Shan You, and Dacheng Tao. Learnability of quantum neural networks. PRX Quantum, 2:040337, Nov 2021

    2021

  39. [48]

    Towards understanding the power of quantum kernels in the NISQ era

    Xinbiao Wang, Yuxuan Du, Yong Luo, and Dacheng Tao. Towards understanding the power of quantum kernels in the NISQ era. Quantum, 5:531, August 2021

    2021

  40. [49]

    Power of data in quantum machine learning

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Michael Broughton, Masoud Mohseni, Ryan Babbush, Sergio Boixo, Hartmut Neven, and Jarrod R McClean. Power of data in quantum machine learning. Nature communica- tions, 12(1):2631, 2021

    2021

  41. [50]

    Generalization bounds for uniformly stable algorithms.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31, 2018

    Vitaly Feldman and Jan V ondrak. Generalization bounds for uniformly stable algorithms.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  42. [51]

    Sharper bounds for uniformly stable algorithms

    Olivier Bousquet, Yegor Klochkov, and Nikita Zhivotovskiy. Sharper bounds for uniformly stable algorithms. In Conference on Learning Theory, pages 610–626. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  43. [52]

    Stability and deviation optimal risk bounds with conver- gence rate o(1/n)

    Yegor Klochkov and Nikita Zhivotovskiy. Stability and deviation optimal risk bounds with conver- gence rate o(1/n). Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:5065–5076, 2021. 14

    2021

  44. [53]

    l_2-uniform stability of randomized learning algorithms: Sharper gen- eralization bounds and confidence boosting

    Xiaotong Yuan and Ping Li. l_2-uniform stability of randomized learning algorithms: Sharper gen- eralization bounds and confidence boosting. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  45. [54]

    Stability and generalization

    Olivier Bousquet and André Elisseeff. Stability and generalization. The Journal of Machine Learn- ing Research, 2:499–526, 2002

    2002

  46. [55]

    Learning theory: stability is sufficient for generalization and necessary and sufficient for consistency of empirical risk mini- mization

    Sayan Mukherjee, Partha Niyogi, Tomaso Poggio, and Ryan Rifkin. Learning theory: stability is sufficient for generalization and necessary and sufficient for consistency of empirical risk mini- mization. Advances in Computational Mathematics, 25:161–193, 2006

    2006

  47. [56]

    Learnability, stability and uniform convergence

    Shai Shalev-Shwartz, Ohad Shamir, Nathan Srebro, and Karthik Sridharan. Learnability, stability and uniform convergence. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11:2635–2670, 2010

    2010

  48. [57]

    Stability of randomized learning algorithms

    Andre Elisseeff, Theodoros Evgeniou, Massimiliano Pontil, and Leslie Pack Kaelbing. Stability of randomized learning algorithms. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 6(1), 2005

    2005

  49. [58]

    Train faster, generalize better: Stability of stochastic gradient descent

    Moritz Hardt, Ben Recht, and Yoram Singer. Train faster, generalize better: Stability of stochastic gradient descent. In International conference on machine learning , pages 1225–1234. PMLR, 2016

    2016

  50. [59]

    Stability and generalization of graph convolutional neural net- works

    Saurabh Verma and Zhi-Li Zhang. Stability and generalization of graph convolutional neural net- works. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discov- ery & Data Mining, pages 1539–1548, 2019

    2019

  51. [60]

    Mitarai, M

    K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii. Quantum circuit learning. Physical Review A, 98(3), September 2018

    2018

  52. [61]

    Evaluating analytic gradients on quantum hardware

    Maria Schuld, Ville Bergholm, Christian Gogolin, Josh Izaac, and Nathan Killoran. Evaluating analytic gradients on quantum hardware. Physical Review A, 99(3), March 2019

    2019

  53. [62]

    Quantum natural gradient

    James Stokes, Josh Izaac, Nathan Killoran, and Giuseppe Carleo. Quantum natural gradient. Quan- tum, 4:269, May 2020

    2020

  54. [63]

    Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits

    Marco Cerezo, Akira Sone, Tyler V olkoff, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J Coles. Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits. Nature communications, 12(1):1791, 2021

    2021

  55. [64]

    Quantum circuit architecture

    Giulio Chiribella, G Mauro D’Ariano, and Paolo Perinotti. Quantum circuit architecture. Physical review letters, 101(6):060401, 2008

    2008

  56. [65]

    Completely positive linear maps on complex matrices

    Man-Duen Choi. Completely positive linear maps on complex matrices. Linear algebra and its applications, 10(3):285–290, 1975

    1975

  57. [66]

    Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators

    Andrzej Jamiołkowski. Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators. Reports on Mathematical Physics, 3(4):275–278, 1972

    1972

  58. [67]

    Toward trainability of quantum neural networks

    Kaining Zhang, Min-Hsiu Hsieh, Liu Liu, and Dacheng Tao. Toward trainability of quantum neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.06258, 2020

    2011 arXiv

  59. [68]

    The dilemma of quantum neural networks

    Yang Qian, Xinbiao Wang, Yuxuan Du, Xingyao Wu, and Dacheng Tao. The dilemma of quantum neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2022

    2022

  60. [69]

    Stochastic gradient descent for hybrid quantum-classical opti- mization

    Ryan Sweke, Frederik Wilde, Johannes Meyer, Maria Schuld, Paul K Fährmann, Barthélémy Meynard-Piganeau, and Jens Eisert. Stochastic gradient descent for hybrid quantum-classical opti- mization. Quantum, 4:314, 2020

    2020

  61. [70]

    Information-theoretic bounds on quantum advantage in machine learning

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill. Information-theoretic bounds on quantum advantage in machine learning. Physical Review Letters, 126(19), May 2021. 15

    2021

  62. [71]

    McClean, Sergio Boixo, Vadim N

    Jarrod R. McClean, Sergio Boixo, Vadim N. Smelyanskiy, Ryan Babbush, and Hartmut Neven. Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes. Nature Communications, 9(1), November 2018

    2018

  63. [72]

    Neural networks and the bias/variance dilemma

    Stuart Geman, Elie Bienenstock, and René Doursat. Neural networks and the bias/variance dilemma. Neural computation, 4(1):1–58, 1992

    1992

  64. [73]

    The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction, volume 2

    Trevor Hastie, Robert Tibshirani, Jerome H Friedman, and Jerome H Friedman. The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction, volume 2. Springer, 2009

    2009

  65. [74]

    Better than classical? the subtle art of benchmarking quantum machine learning models

    Joseph Bowles, Shahnawaz Ahmed, and Maria Schuld. Better than classical? the subtle art of benchmarking quantum machine learning models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07059, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Breast Cancer Wisconsin (Diagnostic)

    Wolberg. Breast Cancer Wisconsin (Diagnostic). UCI Machine Learning Repository, 1995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5DW2B

    1995 doi

  67. [76]

    Mnist handwritten digit database.ATT Labs [Online]

    Yann LeCun, Corinna Cortes, and CJ Burges. Mnist handwritten digit database.ATT Labs [Online]. Available: http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/mnist, 2, 2010

    2010

  68. [77]

    Fashion-mnist: a novel image dataset for bench- marking machine learning algorithms

    Han Xiao, Kashif Rasul, and Roland V ollgraf. Fashion-mnist: a novel image dataset for bench- marking machine learning algorithms. CoRR, abs/1708.07747, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Chow, and Jay M

    Abhinav Kandala, Antonio Mezzacapo, Kristan Temme, Maika Takita, Markus Brink, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta. Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets. Nature, 549(7671):242–246, sep 2017

    2017

  70. [79]

    Expressibility of the alternating layered ansatz for quantum computation

    Kouhei Nakaji and Naoki Yamamoto. Expressibility of the alternating layered ansatz for quantum computation. Quantum, 5:434, apr 2021

    2021

  71. [80]

    Expressibility and entangling capability of parameterized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum-classical algorithms

    Sukin Sim, Peter D Johnson, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. Expressibility and entangling capability of parameterized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum-classical algorithms. Advanced Quantum Technologies, 2(12):1900070, 2019

    2019

  72. [81]

    Re- versing unknown quantum transformations: Universal quantum circuit for inverting general unitary operations

    Marco Túlio Quintino, Qingxiuxiong Dong, Atsushi Shimbo, Akihito Soeda, and Mio Murao. Re- versing unknown quantum transformations: Universal quantum circuit for inverting general unitary operations. Physical Review Letters, 123(21):210502, November 2019

    2019

  73. [82]

    An overview of gradient descent optimization algorithms

    Sebastian Ruder. An overview of gradient descent optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.04747, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  74. [83]

    Anschuetz

    Eric R. Anschuetz. A unified theory of quantum neural network loss landscapes, 2024

    2024

  75. [84]

    Theoretical framework for quan- tum networks

    Giulio Chiribella, Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano, and Paolo Perinotti. Theoretical framework for quan- tum networks. Physical Review A, 80(2):022339, 2009

    2009

  76. [85]

    Quantum advantage in reversing unknown unitary evolutions, 2024

    Yu-Ao Chen, Yin Mo, Yingjian Liu, Lei Zhang, and Xin Wang. Quantum advantage in reversing unknown unitary evolutions, 2024

    2024

  77. [86]

    Reversing Unknown Qubit-Unitary Operation, Deterministically and Exactly

    Satoshi Yoshida, Akihito Soeda, and Mio Murao. Reversing Unknown Qubit-Unitary Operation, Deterministically and Exactly. Physical Review Letters, 131(12), 2023

    2023

  78. [87]

    Optimal quantum networks and one-shot entropies

    Giulio Chiribella and Daniel Ebler. Optimal quantum networks and one-shot entropies. New Jour- nal of Physics, 18(9):093053, September 2016

    2016

  79. [88]

    Optimal quantum learning of a unitary transformation.Physical Review A, 81(3):032324, March 2010

    Alessandro Bisio, Giulio Chiribella, Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano, Stefano Facchini, and Paolo Perinotti. Optimal quantum learning of a unitary transformation.Physical Review A, 81(3):032324, March 2010

    2010

  80. [89]

    Optimal probabilistic storage and retrieval of unitary channels

    Michal Sedlák, Alessandro Bisio, and Mário Ziman. Optimal probabilistic storage and retrieval of unitary channels. Physical Review Letters, 122(17):170502, May 2019. 16

    2019

  81. [90]

    Reversing Unknown Quantum Processes via Virtual Combs: for Channels with Limited Information

    Chengkai Zhu, Yin Mo, Yu-Ao Chen, and Xin Wang. Reversing Unknown Quantum Processes via Virtual Combs: for Channels with Limited Information. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04672, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  82. [91]

    Quantum com- putations without definite causal structure

    Giulio Chiribella, Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano, Paolo Perinotti, and Benoit Valiron. Quantum com- putations without definite causal structure. Physical Review A, 88(2):022318, August 2013

    2013

  83. [92]

    Quantum correlations with no causal order

    Ognyan Oreshkov, Fabio Costa, and ˇCaslav Brukner. Quantum correlations with no causal order. Nature Communications, 3(1):1092, October 2012

    2012

  84. [93]

    Quantum computation and quantum information

    Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang. Quantum computation and quantum information . Cam- bridge university press, 2010. 17 Appendix In the table below, we summarize the notations used throughout the paper: Symbol Definition HA, HA′, · · ·Hilbert space of quantum system A, A′, ...

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.