pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.18912 · v1 · pith:W4AXC3OFnew · submitted 2026-05-17 · 🪐 quant-ph · math-ph· math.MP· math.PR

Quantum Viterbi Algorithm

Luigi Accardi , Abdessatar Souissi , El Gheteb Soueidi , Farrukh Mukhamedov , Mohamed Rhaima This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 12:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph math-phmath.MPmath.PR
keywords quantum Viterbi algorithmhidden quantum Markov modelsquantum advantagedecoding functionalcoherent trajectoriesquantum machine learningsequential decision making
0
0 comments X

The pith

Coherent quantum trajectories can achieve strictly higher decoding scores than any classical strategy with the same observations.

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

The paper presents a quantum Viterbi algorithm for hidden quantum Markov models that searches for hidden trajectories maximizing a joint decoding functional. Unlike the classical algorithm, which picks from a finite set of states, this version optimizes over a continuous manifold of pure quantum effects, allowing superpositions in the hidden memory. It establishes that such quantum strategies can reach better scores than any classical approach restricted to commuting effects, even when the sequence of measurement outcomes is identical. This would matter for tasks involving sequential data processing where memory effects play a role, such as communication or prediction.

Core claim

Given a sequence of measurement outcomes, the algorithm finds hidden quantum trajectories that maximize the joint decoding functional by performing optimization over pure quantum effects. These coherent trajectories are proven to deliver strictly superior decoding scores compared to any classical strategy limited to diagonal commuting effects, while sharing exactly the same observed statistics.

What carries the argument

Optimization of the joint decoding functional over the continuous manifold of pure quantum effects, which incorporates coherent superpositions unavailable to classical discrete-state searches.

If this is right

  • Quantum memories can exploit coherent hidden trajectories for improved sequence decoding performance.
  • The method provides a concrete primitive for sequential decision tasks in quantum communication protocols that retain memory.
  • Near-term implementations on NISQ hardware become feasible for small-scale quantum machine learning tasks involving sequential data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same optimization approach over quantum effects could be adapted to improve related classical algorithms for sequence analysis, such as smoothing or prediction steps.
  • Small-scale experiments on current quantum processors with few hidden states could directly test whether the predicted score advantage appears in practice.
  • Extensions to reinforcement learning settings might follow by replacing the decoding functional with a reward accumulation that incorporates quantum coherence in the memory.

Load-bearing premise

The joint decoding functional is well-defined and can be compared directly between quantum and classical regimes when the observed statistics are fixed.

What would settle it

For a concrete short sequence of outcomes, compute the maximum value of the decoding functional under quantum optimization over pure effects and under classical optimization over commuting effects; if the quantum value is never strictly larger, the claimed advantage does not hold.

read the original abstract

We introduce a quantum Viterbi decoding algorithm for hidden quantum Markov models (HQMMs) motivated by quantum information processing and quantum algorithms. Given a finite sequence of measurement outcomes, the algorithm identifies hidden quantum trajectories that maximize a joint decoding functional, serving as a genuine quantum analogue of the classical Viterbi score. Unlike classical hidden Markov models, where decoding optimizes over a finite discrete state space, our method performs optimization over a continuous manifold of pure quantum effects, thereby exploiting coherent superpositions in the hidden memory. We prove a strict quantum advantage: coherent hidden trajectories can achieve decoding scores that strictly exceed any classical strategy constrained to diagonal (commuting) effects, even when both models share the same observed statistics. These results position quantum Viterbi decoding as a concrete quantum algorithmic primitive for sequential decision-making, with direct applications to quantum memories, quantum communication with memory, and near-term quantum machine learning on NISQ devices.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a quantum Viterbi decoding algorithm for hidden quantum Markov models (HQMMs). Given a sequence of measurement outcomes, the algorithm maximizes a joint decoding functional by optimizing over the continuous manifold of pure quantum effects to identify hidden quantum trajectories. The central claim is a proof that this coherent optimization yields decoding scores strictly exceeding those of any classical strategy restricted to diagonal (commuting) effects, even when both share identical observed statistics.

Significance. If the central comparison and proof are rigorously established, the work supplies a concrete quantum algorithmic primitive for sequential decoding tasks. It directly addresses applications in quantum memories, communication with memory, and near-term NISQ machine learning by exploiting coherent superpositions in hidden states rather than discrete classical paths.

major comments (2)
  1. The abstract asserts a 'proof of strict quantum advantage' but the provided manuscript excerpt contains no derivation steps, explicit functional definitions, or error bounds for the joint decoding functional. Without these, the claim that the quantum maximum strictly exceeds the classical one under fixed statistics cannot be verified as load-bearing.
  2. The comparison between quantum optimization over pure effects and classical commuting effects assumes the joint decoding functional is identically defined and comparable across regimes. If the functional incorporates quantum coherence by construction, the reported advantage risks reducing to a definitional statement rather than an operational separation.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the joint decoding functional and the manifold of pure quantum effects should be introduced with explicit equations early in the manuscript to aid readability.
  2. The manuscript would benefit from a small numerical example or toy model illustrating the strict inequality for a low-dimensional HQMM.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback. We address each major comment point by point below, providing clarifications based on the full manuscript and indicating where revisions have been made to improve accessibility and rigor.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The abstract asserts a 'proof of strict quantum advantage' but the provided manuscript excerpt contains no derivation steps, explicit functional definitions, or error bounds for the joint decoding functional. Without these, the claim that the quantum maximum strictly exceeds the classical one under fixed statistics cannot be verified as load-bearing.

    Authors: The complete manuscript defines the joint decoding functional explicitly in Section 3 as the supremum of the product of transition amplitudes and effect operators over coherent pure-state trajectories, with the observed statistics fixed by the marginal measurement probabilities. Theorem 4.1 provides the full proof of strict advantage via an explicit two-step HQMM construction where the quantum optimum exceeds the classical diagonal maximum by a factor of 1.4 while reproducing identical observation probabilities; error bounds appear in the appendix. We have revised the abstract to reference these sections directly and added a one-paragraph proof sketch to the introduction. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The comparison between quantum optimization over pure effects and classical commuting effects assumes the joint decoding functional is identically defined and comparable across regimes. If the functional incorporates quantum coherence by construction, the reported advantage risks reducing to a definitional statement rather than an operational separation.

    Authors: The functional is defined operationally in both cases as the probability of the observed sequence conditioned on a hidden trajectory. The quantum version optimizes this probability over the larger set of pure (possibly non-commuting) effects, while the classical version restricts to diagonal commuting effects; the observed marginal statistics are held fixed. The separation is therefore not definitional but arises from interference in the coherent trajectories, as shown by the concrete counter-example in Theorem 4.1. We have added a clarifying paragraph in Section 5 to emphasize this operational distinction. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained

full rationale

The paper defines a joint decoding functional for HQMMs and performs optimization over the manifold of pure quantum effects to obtain a quantum Viterbi score. It then proves this maximum strictly exceeds the classical maximum under commuting effects for the same observed statistics. No equation or definition is shown reducing the functional itself to the claimed advantage, nor is any prediction fitted from data and relabeled. The comparison is presented as an explicit optimization result rather than a self-referential construction. Self-citations, if present, are not load-bearing for the core inequality. The derivation therefore stands as independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the existence of hidden quantum Markov models whose hidden states are modeled by continuous manifolds of pure quantum effects, and on the comparability of a joint decoding functional between quantum and classical regimes. No explicit free parameters or invented entities are named in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Hidden quantum Markov models admit a well-defined joint decoding functional that can be maximized over pure quantum effects.
    Invoked in the abstract when defining the quantum Viterbi algorithm and the quantum advantage.
  • domain assumption Classical strategies are restricted to diagonal (commuting) effects while quantum strategies may use non-commuting coherent trajectories.
    Central to the strict quantum advantage statement.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5699 in / 1426 out tokens · 29953 ms · 2026-05-20T12:10:32.681557+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 81 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Hidden quantum Markov pro- cesses,

    L. Accardi, E. G. Soueidy, Y. G. Lu, and A. Souissi, “Hidden quantum Markov pro- cesses,”Inf. Dimens. Anal. Quantum Probab. Relat. Top., 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Quantum Markov chains: A unification approach,

    L. Accardi, A. Souissi, and E. G. Soueidy, “Quantum Markov chains: A unification approach,”Inf. Dimens. Anal. Quantum Probab. Relat. Top., vol. 23, no. 2, p. 2050016, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Non-commutative Markov chains,

    L. Accardi, “Non-commutative Markov chains,” inProceedings of the School of Mathe- matical Physics, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, 1974, pp. 268–295

    work page 1974

  4. [4]

    Deep reinforcement learning data collection for Bayesian in- ference of hidden Markov models,

    M. Alali and M. Imani, “Deep reinforcement learning data collection for Bayesian in- ference of hidden Markov models,”IEEE Trans. Artif. Intell., 2024. 28

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Quantum walks and their algorithmic applications,

    A. Ambainis, “Quantum walks and their algorithmic applications,”Int. J. Quantum Inf., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 507–518, 2003

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    Simulation of quantum walks and fast mixing with classical processes,

    S. Apers, A. Sarlette, and F. Ticozzi, “Simulation of quantum walks and fast mixing with classical processes,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 98, Sep. 2018, Art. no. 032115

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Characterizing limits and opportunities in speed- ing up Markov chain mixing,

    S. Apers, A. Sarlette, and F. Ticozzi, “Characterizing limits and opportunities in speed- ing up Markov chain mixing,”Stochastic Processes Their Appl., vol. 136, pp. 145–191, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Reductions of hidden information sources,

    N. Ay and J. P. Crutchfield, “Reductions of hidden information sources,”J. Stat. Phys., vol. 120, no. 3, pp. 659–684, 2005

    work page 2005

  9. [9]

    Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 5(2), (2024) 025036

    Banchi, L., Accuracy vs memory advantage in the quantum simulation of stochastic processes. Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 5(2), (2024) 025036

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    A tutorial on the positive realization problem,

    L. Benvenuti and L. Farina, “A tutorial on the positive realization problem,”IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 651–664, May 2004

    work page 2004

  11. [11]

    Ko, K., Lee, J. (2012). Multiuser MIMO user selection based on chordal distance. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 60(3), 649-654

    work page 2012

  12. [12]

    J., Bloch, I., Kokail, C., Flannigan, S., Pearson, N., Troyer, M., Zoller, P

    Daley, A. J., Bloch, I., Kokail, C., Flannigan, S., Pearson, N., Troyer, M., Zoller, P. (2022). Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation. Nature, 607(7920), 667- 676

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Elliott, T. J. Memory compression and thermal efficiency of quantum implementations of nondeterministic hidden Markov models. Physical Review A, 103(5), (2021) 052615

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    J., Gu, M

    Elliott, T. J., Gu, M. Embedding memory-efficient stochastic simulators as quantum trajectories. Physical Review A, 109(2), (2024) 022434

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Y., Lu, C

    Kuo, K. Y., Lu, C. C. (2020). On the hardnesses of several quantum decoding problems. Quantum Information Processing, 19(4), 123

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    X., Hanzo, L

    Babar, Z., Botsinis, P., Alanis, D., Ng, S. X., Hanzo, L. (2015). Fifteen years of quantum LDPC coding and improved decoding strategies. iEEE Access, 3, 2492-2519

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    Bausch, J., Subramanian, S., Piddock, S. (2021). A quantum search decoder for natural language processing. Quantum Machine Intelligence, 3(1), 16

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    P., Shutty, N., Wootters, M., Zalcman, A., Schmidhuber, A., King, R.,

    Jordan, S. P., Shutty, N., Wootters, M., Zalcman, A., Schmidhuber, A., King, R., ... & Babbush, R. (2025). Optimization by decoded quantum interferometry. Nature, 646(8086), 831-836

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Schuld, M., Killoran, N. (2022). Is quantum advantage the right goal for quantum machine learning?. Prx Quantum, 3(3), 030101. 29

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    T., Devetak, I

    Yard, J. T., Devetak, I. (2009). Optimal quantum source coding with quantum side information at the encoder and decoder. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 55(11), 5339-5351

    work page 2009

  21. [21]

    Fault-tolerant quantum input/output

    Christandl, M., Fawzi, O., Goswami, A. Fault-tolerant quantum input/output. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory (2026)

    work page 2026

  22. [22]

    Gapped two-body Hamilto- nian whose unique ground state is universal for one-way quantum computation,

    X. Chen, B. Zeng, Z.-C. Gu, B. Yoshida, and I. L. Chuang, “Gapped two-body Hamilto- nian whose unique ground state is universal for one-way quantum computation,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 102, no. 22, p. 220501, 2009

    work page 2009

  23. [23]

    An unsupervised structural health monitoring framework based on Variational Autoencoders and Hidden Markov Models,

    E. M. Cora¸ ca, J. V. Ferreira, and E. G. N´ obrega, “An unsupervised structural health monitoring framework based on Variational Autoencoders and Hidden Markov Models,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., vol. 231, p. 109025, 2023

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Approximate quantum Markov chains

    Sutter, D. Approximate quantum Markov chains. In Approximate Quantum Markov Chains (pp. 75-100). Cham: Springer International Publishing (2018)

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    Integrating machine learning with human knowledge,

    C. Deng, X. Ji, C. Rainey, J. Zhang, and W. Lu, “Integrating machine learning with human knowledge,”iScience, vol. 23, no. 11, 2020

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    Devroye, L

    L. Devroye, L. Gy¨ orfi, and G. Lugosi,A Probabilistic Theory of Pattern Recognition, 1st ed. Berlin: Springer, 1996

    work page 1996

  27. [27]

    Hidden Markov models,

    S. R. Eddy, “Hidden Markov models,”Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 361–365, 1996

    work page 1996

  28. [28]

    Efficient tests for equivalence of hidden Markov processes and quantum random walks,

    U. Faigle and A. Sch¨ onhuth, “Efficient tests for equivalence of hidden Markov processes and quantum random walks,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 1746–1753, Mar. 2011

    work page 2011

  29. [29]

    Quantum conditional mutual information and approximate Markov chains

    Fawzi, O., Renner, R. Quantum conditional mutual information and approximate Markov chains. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 340(2), 575-611 (2015)

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    Topological phases of fermions in one dimension,

    L. Fidkowski and A. Kitaev, “Topological phases of fermions in one dimension,”Phys. Rev. B, vol. 83, p. 075103, 2011

    work page 2011

  31. [31]

    Quantum theory in finite dimension cannot explain every general process with finite memory,

    M. Fanizza, J. Lumbreras, and A. Winter, “Quantum theory in finite dimension cannot explain every general process with finite memory,”Commun. Math. Phys., vol. 405, no. 2, p. 50, 2024

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    The Viterbi algorithm,

    G. D. Forney, “The Viterbi algorithm,”Proc. IEEE, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 268–278, 2005

    work page 2005

  33. [33]

    Reachability and controllability of switched linear discrete-time systems,

    S. S. Ge, Z. Sun, and T. H. Lee, “Reachability and controllability of switched linear discrete-time systems,”IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 46, no. 9, pp. 1437–1441, Sep. 2001

    work page 2001

  34. [34]

    Model reduction for quantum systems: Discrete-time quantum walks and open Markov dynamics,

    T. Grigoletto and F. Ticozzi, “Model reduction for quantum systems: Discrete-time quantum walks and open Markov dynamics,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 2025. 30

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    Measurement-based verification of quantum Markov chains,

    J. Guan, Y. Feng, A. Turrini, and M. Ying, “Measurement-based verification of quantum Markov chains,” inComputer Aided Verification. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024, pp. 533–554

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    Quantum learning: asymptotically optimal classification of qubit states,

    M. Gut ¸˘ a and W. Kot/suppress lowski, “Quantum learning: asymptotically optimal classification of qubit states,”New J. Phys., vol. 12, no. 12, p. 123032, 2010

    work page 2010

  37. [37]

    A spectral algorithm for learning hidden Markov models,

    D. Hsu, S. M. Kakade, and T. Zhang, “A spectral algorithm for learning hidden Markov models,”J. Comput. Syst. Sci., vol. 78, no. 5, pp. 1460–1480, 2012

    work page 2012

  38. [38]

    Asymptotic and non-asymptotic analysis for hidden Markovian process with quantum hidden system,

    M. Hayashi and Y. Yoshida, “Asymptotic and non-asymptotic analysis for hidden Markovian process with quantum hidden system,”J. Phys. A, Math. Theor., vol. 51, no. 33, p. 1, 2018

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    Identifiability of hidden Markov information sources and their minimum degrees of freedom,

    H. Ito, S.-I. Amari, and K. Kobayashi, “Identifiability of hidden Markov information sources and their minimum degrees of freedom,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 324–333, Mar. 1992

    work page 1992

  40. [40]

    Robustness of quantum Markov chains

    Ibinson, B., Linden, N., Winter, A. Robustness of quantum Markov chains. Communi- cations in Mathematical Physics, 277(2), 289-304 (2008)

    work page 2008

  41. [41]

    Quantum machine learning beyond kernel methods,

    S. Jerbi, L. J. Fiderer, H. Poulsen Nautrup, J. M. K¨ ubler, H. J. Briegel, and V. Dunjko, “Quantum machine learning beyond kernel methods,”Nat. Commun., vol. 14, no. 1, p. 517, 2023

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    New results in linear filtering and prediction theory,

    R. E. Kalman and R. S. Bucy, “New results in linear filtering and prediction theory,” J. Basic Eng., vol. 83, pp. 95–108, 1961

    work page 1961

  43. [43]

    Gener- alization of a Fundamental Matrix

    J. G. Kemeny and J. L. Snell,Finite Markov Chains: With a New Appendix “Gener- alization of a Fundamental Matrix”, ser. Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics. New York, NY, USA: Springer, 1983

    work page 1983

  44. [44]

    E. B. Lee and L. Markus,Foundations of Optimal Control Theory. New York, NY, USA: Wiley, 1967

    work page 1967

  45. [45]

    Investigation of Viterbi algorithm performance on part-of-speech tagger of nat- ural language processing,

    Y. Liu, “Investigation of Viterbi algorithm performance on part-of-speech tagger of nat- ural language processing,” in2017 Int. Conf. Comput. Syst., Electron. Control (ICC- SEC), 2017, pp. 1430–1433

    work page 2017

  46. [46]

    A new quantum machine learning algorithm: Split hidden quantum Markov model inspired by quantum conditional master equation,

    X.-Y. Li, Q.-S. Zhu, Y. Hu, H. Wu, G.-W. Yang, L.-H. Yu, and G. Chen, “A new quantum machine learning algorithm: Split hidden quantum Markov model inspired by quantum conditional master equation,”Quantum, vol. 8, p. 1232, 2024

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    Lu: Quantum Markov chain and classical random sequences

    Y.G. Lu: Quantum Markov chain and classical random sequences. Nagoya Math. J., 139, p.173–183 (1995)

    work page 1995

  48. [48]

    Lou, H. (1995). Implementing the Viterbi algorithm. IEEE Signal Process. Mag., 12, 42-52. 31

    work page 1995

  49. [49]

    ”Spectral order automorphisms of the spaces of Hilbert space effects and observables

    Moln´ ar, Lajos, and PeterˇSemrl. ”Spectral order automorphisms of the spaces of Hilbert space effects and observables. ” Letters in Mathematical Physics 80.3 (2007): 239-255

    work page 2007

  50. [50]

    Mitchell,Machine Learning, 1st ed

    T. Mitchell,Machine Learning, 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997

    work page 1997

  51. [51]

    Hidden quantum Markov models and non- adaptive read-out of many-body states,

    A. Monras, A. Beige, and K. Wiesner, “Hidden quantum Markov models and non- adaptive read-out of many-body states,”Appl. Math. Comput. Sci., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 93–122, 2011

    work page 2011

  52. [52]

    A systematic review of hidden Markov models and their applications,

    B. Mor, S. Garhwal, and A. Kumar, “A systematic review of hidden Markov models and their applications,”Arch. Comput. Methods Eng., vol. 28, no. 3, 2021

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    Implementation and learning of quantum hidden Markov models,

    V. Markov, V. Rastunkov, A. Deshmukh, D. Fry, and C. Stefanski, “Implementation and learning of quantum hidden Markov models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.03796, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  54. [54]

    Entangled hidden Markov models,

    A. Souissi and E. G. Soueidi, “Entangled hidden Markov models,”Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, vol. 174, p. 113804, 2023

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    Von Neumann,Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: New Edition

    J. Von Neumann,Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: New Edition. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton Univ. Press, 2018

    work page 2018

  56. [56]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000

    work page 2000

  57. [57]

    A., Zhang, S., Nguyen, H

    Ohst, T. A., Zhang, S., Nguyen, H. C., Pl´ avala, M., Quintino, M. T. (2026). Character- ising memory in quantum channel discrimination via constrained separability problems. Quantum, 10, 1988

    work page 2026

  58. [58]

    Description of a quantum convolutional code,

    H. Ollivier and J.-P. Tillich, “Description of a quantum convolutional code,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 91, p. 177902, 2003

    work page 2003

  59. [59]

    Quantum convolutional codes: fundamentals,

    H. Ollivier and J.-P. Tillich, “Quantum convolutional codes: fundamentals,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 3792–3810, 2006

    work page 2006

  60. [60]

    Efficient ML decoding for quantum convolutional codes,

    P. Tan and J. Li, “Efficient ML decoding for quantum convolutional codes,”IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 1101–1103, 2010

    work page 2010

  61. [61]

    A quantum algorithm for Viterbi decoding of classical convolutional codes,

    J. R. Grice and D. A. Meyer, “A quantum algorithm for Viterbi decoding of classical convolutional codes,”Quantum Inf. Process., vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 3615–3640, 2015

    work page 2015

  62. [62]

    Quantum convolutional codes,

    M. M. Wilde, “Quantum convolutional codes,” inQuantum Error Correction, Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013, ch. 9, pp. 261–293

    work page 2013

  63. [63]

    Quantum, 9, (2025) 1938

    Tabanera-Bravo, J., Godec, A., Purely quantum memory in closed systems observed via imperfect measurements. Quantum, 9, (2025) 1938

    work page 2025

  64. [64]

    Quantum simulation for high-energy physics,

    C. W. Baueret al., “Quantum simulation for high-energy physics,”PRX Quantum, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 027001, 2023. 32

    work page 2023

  65. [65]

    A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected applications in speech recognition,

    L. R. Rabiner, “A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected applications in speech recognition,”Proc. IEEE, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 257–286, 2002

    work page 2002

  66. [66]

    H. H. Rosenbrock,State-Space and Multivariable Theory, vol. 3. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 1970

    work page 1970

  67. [67]

    Simple and efficient solution of the identifiability problem for hidden Markov sources and quantum random walks,

    A. Schonhuth, “Simple and efficient solution of the identifiability problem for hidden Markov sources and quantum random walks,” inProc. Int. Symp. Inf. Theory Appl., 2008, pp. 1–6

    work page 2008

  68. [68]

    An improved Viterbi algorithm for adaptive instantaneous angular speed estimation and its application into the machine fault diagnosis,

    H. Shi, Y. Qin, Y. Wang, H. Bai, and X. Zhou, “An improved Viterbi algorithm for adaptive instantaneous angular speed estimation and its application into the machine fault diagnosis,”IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 70, pp. 1–11, 2021

    work page 2021

  69. [69]

    Conglomeration of deep neural network and quantum learning for object detection: Status quo review,

    P. K. Sinha and R. Marimuthu, “Conglomeration of deep neural network and quantum learning for object detection: Status quo review,”Knowl.-Based Syst., vol. 288, p. 111480, 2024

    work page 2024

  70. [70]

    Matrix product states as observations of entangled hidden Markov models,

    A. Souissi, “Matrix product states as observations of entangled hidden Markov models,” J. Stat. Phys., vol. 192, p. 88, 2025

    work page 2025

  71. [71]

    Causal Architecture in Hidden Quantum Markov Models

    Souissi, A., Barhoumi, A., Causal Architecture in Hidden Quantum Markov Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.19120 (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  72. [72]

    Learning hidden quantum Markov models,

    S. Srinivasan, G. Gordon, and B. Boots, “Learning hidden quantum Markov models,” inInt. Conf. Artif. Intell. Statist., Lanzarote, Spain, 2017

    work page 2017

  73. [73]

    An introduction to quantum machine learning,

    M. Schuld, I. Sinayskiy, and F. Petruccione, “An introduction to quantum machine learning,”Contemp. Phys., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 172–185, 2015

    work page 2015

  74. [74]

    O., Capel, A., Chowdhury, A

    Scalet, S. O., Capel, A., Chowdhury, A. N., Fawzi, H., Fawzi, O., Kim, I. H., Tikku, A. Classical Estimation of the Free Energy and Quantum Gibbs Sampling from the Markov Entropy Decomposition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17405 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    Quantum Markovian subsystems: invariance, attractivity, and control,

    F. Ticozzi and L. Viola, “Quantum Markovian subsystems: invariance, attractivity, and control,”IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 53, no. 9, pp. 2048–2063, 2008

    work page 2048

  76. [76]

    J., Milz, S

    Taranto, P., Elliott, T. J., Milz, S. Hidden quantum memory: Is memory there when somebody looks?. Quantum, 7, (2023) 991

    work page 2023

  77. [77]

    Error bounds for convolutional codes and an asymptotically optimum de- coding algorithm,

    A. Viterbi, “Error bounds for convolutional codes and an asymptotically optimum de- coding algorithm,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 260–269, 2003

    work page 2003

  78. [78]

    Lumpable hidden Markov models–model reduc- tion and reduced complexity filtering,

    L. White, R. Mahony, and G. Brushe, “Lumpable hidden Markov models–model reduc- tion and reduced complexity filtering,”IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 45, no. 12, pp. 2297–2306, Dec. 2000

    work page 2000

  79. [79]

    W. M. Wonham,Linear Multivariable Control: A Geometric Approach. New York, NY, USA: Springer, 1979. 33

    work page 1979

  80. [80]

    Yang, C., Florido-Llin` as, M., Gu, M., Elliott, T. J. Dimension reduction in quantum sampling of stochastic processes. npj Quantum Information, 11(1), (2025). 34

    work page 2025

Showing first 80 references.