Quantum-Enhanced Channel Mixing in RWKV Models for Time Series Forecasting

Chi-Sheng Chen; En-Jui Kuo

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Quantum-Enhanced Channel Mixing in RWKV Models for Time Series Forecasting

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims QuantumRWKV, a hybrid quantum–classical recurrent model, beats its classical counterpart on 6 of 10 synthetic time-series tasks by swapping part of the feedforward network for a variational quantum circuit.

desk verdict A transparent, well-scoped first look at putting a VQC inside RWKV's channel mixing, but the central 6-of-10 claim rests on mean differences whose error bars overlap in every row; treat it as a map, not a demonstrated advantage. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13524 v2 pith:RXBS3ABR submitted 2025-05-18 quant-ph

Chi-Sheng Chen , En-Jui Kuo This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords quantummachinelearningvariationalcircuitshybridquantum-classicalmodelstimeseriesforecastingRWKVrecurrentneuralnetworkschannelmixingchaoticdynamics

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a hybrid quantum-classical recurrent model, QuantumRWKV, can beat its purely classical base model on a majority of next-step time-series forecasting tasks. It reports that QuantumRWKV achieves lower mean error on 6 of 10 synthetic benchmarks, with the clearest improvements on chaotic, noise-driven, and smoothly nonlinear signals such as Chaotic Logistic, Noisy Damped Oscillator, and Sine Wave. The paper also claims the reverse pattern holds for sharply discontinuous or regular signals, where the classical model remains better. Establishing this matters because it suggests a small quantum circuit inserted into one architectural module can provide a task-dependent accuracy gain without changing the training pipeline.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the quantum-enhanced channel-mixing branch: a variational quantum circuit on four qubits that angle-encodes each projected input as $R_X(\theta_i)$ rotations, applies two entangling layers of CNOT gates in a ladder pattern, and measures Pauli-$Z$ expectation values on each qubit. Those values are projected back to the model dimension and added to the classical squared-ReLU branch, with the sum gated by the RWKV receptance. The classical time-mixing recurrence is kept unchanged, so the quantum circuit is the only difference between the two models being compared.

What would settle it

Re-run the ten tasks with at least thirty seeds, compute the paired per-seed difference in MAE between QuantumRWKV and classical RWKV, and check whether the sign of the difference matches Table 1 more often than chance; the single-run results in Table 2 already show ARMA and Sawtooth flipping from quantum-better to classical-better, so a flip-rate near 50% on those tasks would disprove the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that replacing the RWKV channel-mixing feedforward network with a dual-branch design — a classical MLP plus a variational quantum circuit — changes forecasting accuracy in a task-dependent way. Averaged over five seeds, QuantumRWKV outperforms classical RWKV on ARMA, Chaotic Logistic, Noisy Damped Oscillator, Sawtooth, Triangle Wave, and Sine Wave, while classical RWKV wins on Damped Oscillator, Piecewise Regime, Square Wave, and Seasonal Trend. The paper interprets the winning pattern as evidence that quantum circuits add representational capacity for continuous, entangled, or noise-sensitive dynamics, but not for piecewise or abrupt transitions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the averaged error differences shown in Table 1, which fall within one standard deviation of each other on every task, are genuine quantum-circuit effects rather than noise between training runs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim holds, a small four-qubit circuit inside the feedforward path is enough to shift forecasting accuracy on chaotic and noisy signals, meaning quantum enhancement can be localized to a single module.
A practitioner choosing between QuantumRWKV and classical RWKV would expect quantum to help on continuous nonlinear dynamics and classical to help on piecewise or sharply discontinuous signals.
The reported gains come without changes to the training loop, so the hybrid model can be dropped into existing RWKV-based pipelines as a modular replacement.
Increasing qubit count or circuit depth is expected to improve the harder structured tasks only up to the point where optimization instability and simulation cost become limiting, which the paper identifies as the main scaling trade-off.

Reading between the lines

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

If the advantage is real, it likely comes from the specific inductive bias of the angle-encoded two-layer circuit rather than from quantum expressivity in general; an ablation replacing the VQC with a random nonlinear classical layer of similar parameter count would separate those explanations.
The reported boundary between quantum-favorable and classical-favorable tasks is testable in a controlled sweep: vary the sharpness of regime transitions or noise level continuously and check whether the crossover tracks the paper's taxonomy.
Because the five-seed error bars overlap on every task, the '6 out of 10' headline is the part most sensitive to randomness; a larger-seed replication would be the first check before building on the result.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Short version: this is a legitimate first mapping of where a small VQC helps or hurts inside a recurrent forecaster, and the authors are unusually honest about their own earlier inconsistent run. But the headline result—quantum wins in 6 of 10 tasks—is not supported by the statistics as reported. Every row of Table 1 has overlapping ±1 SD intervals, and their own appendix Table 2 flips ARMA and Sawtooth. That doesn't kill the paper; it means the conclusions overreach the evidence.

What is genuinely new: the architecture combination (VQC inserted into RWKV's channel-mixing path) is not in the cited literature, and the ten-task synthetic benchmark is a sensible controlled setup. The code is on GitHub, the hyperparameters are specified, and both models are trained under matched conditions. They also include the v1 single-run table and flag its sampling bias, which is more transparency than most hybrid-QML submissions show.

Soft spots, in order of importance. First, no paired significance tests or confidence intervals on the differences; with five seeds per task, a paired test is easy and would have been the right call. Second, the task taxonomy is read off the same noisy means and doesn't hold together: ARMA is linear yet counts as a quantum win, and Damped Oscillator is smooth yet is a classical win. Third, the quantum branch adds parameters (projection, circuit weights, output projection) on top of the unchanged classical FFN; the classical baseline has no equivalent extra capacity, so the comparison conflates 'quantumness' with added representational freedom. That last point is not fatal—it's a legitimate design choice—but it should be acknowledged and ideally ablated with a classical parallel branch of matched size. Minor points: the Section 7 'theoretical insights' are post-hoc and should be labeled as conjecture; and the text is inconsistent about 3 vs 5 seeds (Section 4.2 says 3, Section 4.4 says 5), likely a leftover.

Bottom line: the paper is a useful preliminary map and deserves a proper referee. I would send it to review with a request for major revision: paired tests, effect sizes, an extra-capacity classical baseline, and external standard forecasting baselines. As a reader, I'd bring it to a reading group for the discussion of what counts as evidence in hybrid QML.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes QuantumRWKV, a hybrid quantum-classical variant of the RWKV architecture in which the channel-mixing feedforward module is augmented by a variational quantum circuit (angle embedding, two entangling layers with CNOT ladders, and Pauli-Z measurements), while preserving end-to-end differentiability through PennyLane. The authors compare QuantumRWKV against a classical RWKV baseline on ten synthetic time-series forecasting tasks using five random seeds, reporting MAE and MSE in Table 1 and concluding that QuantumRWKV outperforms the classical model in 6 of 10 tasks, particularly for chaotic, noisy, and smooth nonlinear dynamics, while classical RWKV is better for sharp regime shifts. An appendix provides the earlier single-run results from the v1 preprint, and the code is publicly available.

Significance. If the central empirical claim were established, the paper would provide one of the first controlled, task-level comparisons of a VQC-augmented recurrent model against its classical counterpart in time-series forecasting. The architectural template is reasonable and the use of PennyLane for end-to-end differentiation is a genuine strength, as are the public code release and the transparent inclusion of the earlier single-run table. However, the current empirical basis is not sufficient: the reported comparisons rely on overlapping point estimates, the binary advantage flags are inconsistent with the tables, and no statistical inference or matched-capacity control is provided. The significance of the paper therefore hinges on additional analysis rather than on the results as they stand.

major comments (5)

[Section 5, Table 1] The central claim that QuantumRWKV outperforms ClassicalRWKV in 6 of 10 tasks is not established by the reported statistics. In every row of Table 1, the per-task mean plus/minus one standard deviation intervals of the two models overlap; for example, Chaotic Logistic is 0.3268±0.0079 vs 0.3478±0.0153 and Sine Wave is 0.5398±0.1323 vs 0.6651±0.0532. The 'Quantum Better' flags are assigned from the sign of the point-estimate difference, with no paired test, no confidence interval on the difference, and no multiple-comparison control, even though Section 4.4 reports five random seeds. The authors should report per-seed paired differences and a paired significance test, or effect sizes with confidence intervals, for every task before claiming a 6-of-10 advantage.
[Section 4.3, Tables 1 and 2] The binary 'Quantum Better' column is internally inconsistent with the reported numbers, and the metric on which it is based is never defined. In Table 1, Seasonal Trend is marked 'No' even though QuantumRWKV has lower mean MAE (0.6918±0.0883 vs 0.7234±0.0756) and lower mean MSE (0.7054±0.1374 vs 0.8879±0.2240); Square Wave is marked 'No' although QuantumRWKV has lower MAE but worse MSE. In Appendix Table 2, ARMA is marked 'No' despite a lower quantum MAE (2.1056 vs 2.1468). Since neither the primary metric nor the flag rule is stated, the count '6 out of 10' cannot be independently verified from the tables.
[Section 4.4 and Appendix Table 2] The paper's own earlier single-run results in Table 2 flip two of the claimed wins: ARMA and Sawtooth change from 'Yes' in Table 1 to 'No' in Table 2. The accompanying note that those results 'may be subject to sampling bias' is an appropriate transparency measure, but the same concern applies to the five-seed means in Table 1, and the new analysis does not resolve it because no per-seed inference is reported. Showing the five individual seed results, or at least paired differences, would address whether the six wins are reproducible effects or seed noise.
[Section 3.2, Eq. (9)] The comparison conflates adding a quantum branch with adding capacity. The classical channel mixing is the FFN alone (Eq. 5), while the quantum-enhanced channel mixing is the same FFN output plus a projected VQC output z' (Eq. 9). Thus QuantumRWKV has an extra parallel branch and strictly more trainable parameters. Any observed improvement could come from the larger parametric capacity rather than from the quantum circuit. A necessary control is a classical QuantumRWKV counterpart in which the VQC branch is replaced by a classical auxiliary MLP or a linear projection with a matched number of parameters; without it, the title claim of 'quantum-enhanced' performance is not identified.
[Sections 6 and 7] The explanatory taxonomy (quantum circuits favor smooth/chaotic/noisy dynamics; classical networks favor piecewise/abrupt signals) is constructed from the same ten tasks and the same noisy point estimates that it is used to explain. No independent tasks, matched pairs that vary only in the posited property, or statistical interaction tests support the dichotomy. As presented, Sections 6–7 are a post-hoc description rather than evidence; they should be reframed as hypotheses or supported by a dedicated experiment.

minor comments (4)

[Section 4.2 vs 4.4] The number of random seeds is reported inconsistently: Section 4.2 says 'Each experiment is repeated with 3 different seeds', while Section 4.4 says 'trained for 1000 epochs for five times by random seeds'. Please align these statements.
[Abstract and Section 3.2] The abstract says the FFN is 'partially replaced' by a VQC, but Eq. (9) describes a parallel combination that retains the complete classical FFN. The wording should be updated to match the architecture.
[Table 1] Several standard deviations imply impossible negative values for MSE (e.g., Noisy Damped Oscillator Classical MSE 0.0268±0.0438), which suggests the seed distributions are skewed or the ± notation is not appropriate for these data; reporting the full seed-wise results or quartiles would be clearer.
[General] Minor naming and formatting issues: 'Noisy Damped Osc' appears in Table 1 while the text uses 'Noisy Damped Oscillator'; 'default.qubit' should be 'default.qubit'; and the reference to 'Mccredie May' should be 'May, R. M.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the QuantumRWKV vs ClassicalRWKV comparison is an independent empirical benchmark, with the only self-citations appearing in related work and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical performance comparison on ten synthetic tasks. The architecture is defined by equations (1)-(10), and the quantum/classical variants differ only in the channel-mixing module (Eq. (5) vs Eq. (9)); neither model definition invokes the results being claimed. The 6-of-10 advantage is obtained from Table 1 measurements, not derived from a fitted parameter or from prior work. The self-citations (refs [1]-[3], [17], [20]-[22]) appear only in the introduction and related work as examples of prior applications and do not supply a load-bearing premise for the forecasting comparison. The post-hoc task taxonomy in Sections 6-7 is an interpretation of the same experiments rather than a derivation, and any concern about overlapping standard deviations or seed sensitivity is a statistical robustness issue, not circularity. Accordingly, no step reduces by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper makes no parameter-free derivation; its results rest on a hand-picked small quantum circuit (4 qubits, depth 2), a fixed training schedule, and five-seed averages. The load-bearing choices are the quantum circuit size and the seed count, because the claimed advantages are small enough to be sensitive to both. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)

nqubits = 4
Hand-chosen to balance expressivity and simulation cost; directly caps the quantum component's Hilbert space size and is not varied or justified.
qdepth = 2
Hand-chosen circuit depth; the paper notes depth increases risk of barren plateaus but never tests the sensitivity of the results to depth.
n_seeds = 5
Five random seeds are used to average results; this small count is the basis of all error bars and win or loss flags.
learning_rate = 1e-3
Fixed Adam learning rate with no decay or early stopping, chosen for fairness but never swept.
epochs = 1000
Fixed training length; no convergence checks, so under- or over-training differences may be conflated with quantum effects.
train_test_split = 80/20
Each 200-step sequence split into 80% train and 20% test; results may depend on this choice, which is not analyzed.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The RWKV recurrence equations (Eq. 1-5) as implemented faithfully reproduce the RWKV architecture.
The paper builds on the cited RWKV model and assumes its PyTorch implementation matches Eq. 1-5.
domain assumption PennyLane default.qubit simulation computes correct expectation values and gradients for the VQC.
All quantum results are simulated; any simulation or differentiation error would directly change the comparison.
domain assumption Five random seeds adequately capture initialization variance.
The error bars in Table 1 are computed from five seeds, and the appendix's single-run table shows different winners, so this assumption is questionable.
domain assumption The ten synthetic tasks are representative of distinct temporal regimes as labeled.
Task labels (chaotic, smooth, discontinuous) drive the post hoc interpretation; no real-world datasets are used.
domain assumption Classical RWKV with identical hyperparameters is the correct baseline for isolating the quantum contribution.
The comparison assumes the only relevant difference is the channel-mixing implementation, with no ablation of the quantum branch's initialization or fusion weight.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum-Enhanced Channel Mixing in RWKV Models for Time Series Forecasting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RXBS3ABR

@misc{pith2026250513524,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum-Enhanced Channel Mixing in RWKV Models for Time Series Forecasting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RXBS3ABR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13524}
}

read the original abstract

Recent advancements in neural sequence modeling have led to architectures such as RWKV, which combine recurrent-style time mixing with feedforward channel mixing to enable efficient long-context processing. In this work, we propose QuantumRWKV, a hybrid quantum-classical extension of the RWKV model, where the standard feedforward network (FFN) is partially replaced by a variational quantum circuit (VQC). The quantum component is designed to enhance nonlinear representational capacity while preserving end-to-end differentiability via the PennyLane framework. To assess the impact of quantum enhancements, we conduct a comparative evaluation between QuantumRWKV and its classical counterpart across ten synthetic time-series forecasting tasks, encompassing linear (ARMA), chaotic (Logistic Map), oscillatory (Damped Oscillator, Sine Wave), and regime-switching signals. Our results show that QuantumRWKV outperforms the classical model in 6 out of 10 tasks, particularly excelling in sequences with nonlinear or chaotic dynamics, such as Chaotic Logistic, Noisy Damped Oscillator, Sine Wave, Triangle Wave, Sawtooth, and ARMA. However, it underperforms on tasks involving sharp regime shifts (Piecewise Regime) or smoother periodic patterns (Damped Oscillator, Seasonal Trend, Square Wave). This study provides one of the first systematic comparisons between hybrid quantum-classical and classical recurrent models in temporal domains, highlighting the scenarios where quantum circuits can offer tangible advantages. We conclude with a discussion on architectural trade-offs, such as variance sensitivity in quantum layers, and outline future directions for scaling quantum integration in long-context temporal learning systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13524 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Structure of the variational quantum circuit (VQC) used in the QuantumChannelMixing module of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

Vision-QRWKV: Exploring Quantum-Enhanced RWKV Models for Image Classification
cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A quantum-enhanced RWKV with a variational circuit in its channel mixer slightly outperforms classical RWKV on a majority of small-image benchmarks, but the differences are within noise.
Quantum-Enhanced Natural Language Generation: A Multi-Model Framework with Hybrid Quantum-Classical Architectures
quant-ph 2025-08 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

A benchmark of QASA, QRWKV, and QKSAN against Transformer and MLP on five tiny datasets, with results that contradict the paper's own tables.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Improving fine-grained food classification using deep residual learning and selective state space models.PloS one, 20(5): e0322695, 2025

Chi-Sheng Chen, Guan-Ying Chen, Dong Zhou, Di Jiang, Daishi Chen, and Shao-Hsuan Chang. Improving fine-grained food classification using deep residual learning and selective state space models.PloS one, 20(5): e0322695, 2025

work page 2025
[2]

Quantum multimodal contrastive learning framework.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13919, 2024

Chi-Sheng Chen, Aidan Hung-Wen Tsai, and Sheng-Chieh Huang. Quantum multimodal contrastive learning framework.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13919, 2024

arXiv 2024
[3]

Unraveling Quantum Environments: Transformer-Assisted Learning in Lindblad Dynamics

Chi-Sheng Chen and En-Jui Kuo. Unraveling quantum environments: Transformer-assisted learning in lindblad dynamics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.06928, 2025

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[4]

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
[5]

Rwkv: Reinventing rnns for the transformer era.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13048, 2023

Bo Peng, Eric Alcaide, Quentin Anthony, Alon Albalak, Samuel Arcadinho, Stella Biderman, Huanqi Cao, Xin Cheng, Michael Chung, Matteo Grella, et al. Rwkv: Reinventing rnns for the transformer era.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13048, 2023

arXiv 2023
[6]

Quantum machine learning.Nature, 549(7671):195–202, 2017

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

2017
[7]

A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity.The bulletin of mathematical biophysics, 5:115–133, 1943

Warren S McCulloch and Walter Pitts. A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity.The bulletin of mathematical biophysics, 5:115–133, 1943

1943
[8]

Introduction to pytorch.Deep learning with python: learn best practices of deep learning models with PyTorch, pages 27–91, 2021

Nikhil Ketkar, Jojo Moolayil, Nikhil Ketkar, and Jojo Moolayil. Introduction to pytorch.Deep learning with python: learn best practices of deep learning models with PyTorch, pages 27–91, 2021

work page 2021

Show all 32 references

[9]

Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations.arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.04968, 2018

Ville Bergholm, Josh Izaac, Maria Schuld, Christian Gogolin, Shahnawaz Ahmed, Vishnu Ajith, M Sohaib Alam, Guillermo Alonso-Linaje, B AkashNarayanan, Ali Asadi, et al. Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations.arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.04968...

2018 arXiv
[10]

Arma models and the box–jenkins methodology.Journal of forecasting, 16(3):147–163, 1997

Spyros Makridakis and Michele Hibon. Arma models and the box–jenkins methodology.Journal of forecasting, 16(3):147–163, 1997

1997
[11]

Chaos and the dynamics of biological populations.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

Robert Mccredie May. Chaos and the dynamics of biological populations.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 413(1844):27–44, 1987

1987
[12]

Rethinking attention with performers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.14794, 2020

Krzysztof Choromanski, Valerii Likhosherstov, David Dohan, Xingyou Song, Andreea Gane, Tamas Sarlos, Peter Hawkins, Jared Davis, Afroz Mohiuddin, Lukasz Kaiser, et al. Rethinking attention with performers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.14794, 2020

2009 arXiv
[13]

Linformer: Self-attention with linear complexity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.04768, 2020

Sinong Wang, Belinda Z Li, Madian Khabsa, Han Fang, and Hao Ma. Linformer: Self-attention with linear complexity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.04768, 2020

2006 arXiv
[14]

Efficiently modeling long sequences with structured state spaces

Albert Gu, Karan Goel, and Christopher Ré. Efficiently modeling long sequences with structured state spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.00396, 2021

2021 arXiv
[15]

Quantum long short-term memory

Samuel Yen-Chi Chen, Shinjae Yoo, and Yao-Lung L Fang. Quantum long short-term memory. InIcassp 2022-2022 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP), pages 8622–8626. IEEE, 2022

2022
[16]

Universal approximation property of quantum machine learning models in quantum-enhanced feature spaces.Physical Review Letters, 127(9):090506, 2021

Takahiro Goto, Quoc Hoan Tran, and Kohei Nakajima. Universal approximation property of quantum machine learning models in quantum-enhanced feature spaces.Physical Review Letters, 127(9):090506, 2021

2021
[17]

Quantum generative models for image generation: Insights from mnist and medmnist.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.00034, 2025

Chi-Sheng Chen, Wei An Hou, Siang-Wei Hu, and Zhen-Sheng Cai. Quantum generative models for image generation: Insights from mnist and medmnist.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.00034, 2025

2025 arXiv
[18]

An end-to-end trainable hybrid classical-quantum classifier.Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 2(4):045021, 2021

Samuel Yen-Chi Chen, Chih-Min Huang, Chia-Wei Hsing, and Ying-Jer Kao. An end-to-end trainable hybrid classical-quantum classifier.Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 2(4):045021, 2021

2021
[19]

Quantum generative adversarial network for generating discrete distribution.Information Sciences, 538:193–208, 2020

Haozhen Situ, Zhimin He, Yuyi Wang, Lvzhou Li, and Shenggen Zheng. Quantum generative adversarial network for generating discrete distribution.Information Sciences, 538:193–208, 2020

2020
[20]

Qeegnet: Quantum machine learning for enhanced electroencephalography encoding

Chi-Sheng Chen, Samuel Yen-Chi Chen, Aidan Hung-Wen Tsai, and Chun-Shu Wei. Qeegnet: Quantum machine learning for enhanced electroencephalography encoding. In2024 IEEE Workshop on Signal Processing Systems (SiPS), pages 153–158. IEEE, 2024

2024
[21]

Exploring the potential of qeegnet for cross-task and cross-dataset electroencephalography encoding with quantum machine learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.00080, 2025

Chi-Sheng Chen, Samuel Yen-Chi Chen, and Huan-Hsin Tseng. Exploring the potential of qeegnet for cross-task and cross-dataset electroencephalography encoding with quantum machine learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.00080, 2025

2025 arXiv
[22]

Quantum adaptive self-attention for quantum transformer models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05336, 2025

Chi-Sheng Chen and En-Jui Kuo. Quantum adaptive self-attention for quantum transformer models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05336, 2025

2025 arXiv
[23]

Quantum recurrent neural networks for sequential learning.Neural Networks, 166: 148–161, 2023

Yanan Li, Zhimin Wang, Rongbing Han, Shangshang Shi, Jiaxin Li, Ruimin Shang, Haiyong Zheng, Guoqiang Zhong, and Yongjian Gu. Quantum recurrent neural networks for sequential learning.Neural Networks, 166: 148–161, 2023

2023
[24]

Quantum reservoir computing with a single nonlinear oscillator.Physical Review Research, 3(1):013077, 2021

LCG Govia, GJ Ribeill, GE Rowlands, HK Krovi, and TA Ohki. Quantum reservoir computing with a single nonlinear oscillator.Physical Review Research, 3(1):013077, 2021

2021
[25]

Springer, 2019

Maria Schuld and Francesco Petruccione.Quantum Machine Learning: An Introduction. Springer, 2019

2019
[26]

Supervised learning with quantum-enhanced feature spaces.Nature, 567(7747):209–212, 2019

V ojtˇech Havlíˇcek, Antonio D Córcoles, Kristan Temme, Aram W Harrow, Abhinav Kandala, Jerry M Chow, and Jay M Gambetta. Supervised learning with quantum-enhanced feature spaces.Nature, 567(7747):209–212, 2019

2019
[27]

Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models.Quantum Science and Technology, 4(4):043001, 2019

Marcello Benedetti, Erika Lloyd, Stefan Sack, and Mattia Fiorentini. Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models.Quantum Science and Technology, 4(4):043001, 2019

2019
[28]

Circuit-centric quantum classifiers.Physical Review A, 101(3):032308, 2020

Maria Schuld, Alex Bocharov, Krysta M Svore, and Nathan Wiebe. Circuit-centric quantum classifiers.Physical Review A, 101(3):032308, 2020

2020
[29]

Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits.Nature Communications, 12(1):1791, 2021

M Cerezo, A Sone, T V olkoff, L Cincio, and PJ Coles. Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits.Nature Communications, 12(1):1791, 2021

2021
[30]

Understanding deep neural networks with rectified linear units

Sanjeev Arora, Rong Ge, Behnam Neyshabur, and Yi Zhang. Understanding deep neural networks with rectified linear units. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2018

2018
[31]

Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes.Nature Communications, 9(1):4812, 2018

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):4812, 2018

2018
[32]

Escaping from the barren plateau via gaussian initializations in deep variational quantum circuits.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.01266, 2022

Kaining Zhang, Liu Liu, Min-Hsiu Hsieh, and Dacheng Tao. Escaping from the barren plateau via gaussian initializations in deep variational quantum circuits.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.01266, 2022. 10

2022 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Improving fine-grained food classification using deep residual learning and selective state space models.PloS one, 20(5): e0322695, 2025

Chi-Sheng Chen, Guan-Ying Chen, Dong Zhou, Di Jiang, Daishi Chen, and Shao-Hsuan Chang. Improving fine-grained food classification using deep residual learning and selective state space models.PloS one, 20(5): e0322695, 2025

work page 2025

[2] [2]

Quantum multimodal contrastive learning framework.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13919, 2024

Chi-Sheng Chen, Aidan Hung-Wen Tsai, and Sheng-Chieh Huang. Quantum multimodal contrastive learning framework.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13919, 2024

arXiv 2024

[3] [3]

Unraveling Quantum Environments: Transformer-Assisted Learning in Lindblad Dynamics

Chi-Sheng Chen and En-Jui Kuo. Unraveling quantum environments: Transformer-assisted learning in lindblad dynamics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.06928, 2025

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[4] [4]

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

[5] [5]

Rwkv: Reinventing rnns for the transformer era.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13048, 2023

Bo Peng, Eric Alcaide, Quentin Anthony, Alon Albalak, Samuel Arcadinho, Stella Biderman, Huanqi Cao, Xin Cheng, Michael Chung, Matteo Grella, et al. Rwkv: Reinventing rnns for the transformer era.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13048, 2023

arXiv 2023

[6] [6]

Quantum machine learning.Nature, 549(7671):195–202, 2017

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

2017

[7] [7]

A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity.The bulletin of mathematical biophysics, 5:115–133, 1943

Warren S McCulloch and Walter Pitts. A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity.The bulletin of mathematical biophysics, 5:115–133, 1943

1943

[8] [8]

Introduction to pytorch.Deep learning with python: learn best practices of deep learning models with PyTorch, pages 27–91, 2021

Nikhil Ketkar, Jojo Moolayil, Nikhil Ketkar, and Jojo Moolayil. Introduction to pytorch.Deep learning with python: learn best practices of deep learning models with PyTorch, pages 27–91, 2021

work page 2021