Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Bayesian Quantum Orthogonal Neural Networks for Anomaly Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · 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 that Bayesian learning of rotation angles in orthogonal quantum neural networks gives anomaly-detection models whose confidence is better calibrated than point-estimate training, and that this holds in an autoencoder…

desk verdict Solid but incremental engineering story; the headline ECE advantage is not independently checkable because the paper never defines how reconstruction error becomes the predicted probabilities that ECE requires. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18103 v1 pith:WMCH5PYD submitted 2025-04-25 quant-ph cs.LG

Natansh Mathur , Brian Coyle , Nishant Jain , Snehal Raj , Akshat Tandon , Jasper Simon Krauser , Rainer Stoessel This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.LG
keywords Bayesianlearningorthogonalneuralnetworksquantummachineanomalydetection3Dconvolutionaluncertaintycalibrationvariationalinferenceadditivemanufacturing
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 training the rotation angles of orthogonal quantum neural networks as probability distributions, instead of as point estimates, yields anomaly-detection models whose confidence is better calibrated. In the autoencoder pipeline applied to 3D voxel blocks from CT scans, Bayesian training lowers the expected calibration error for both fully connected and the paper's new 3D-convolutional architectures, though at a small cost in precision, recall, and F1 score. A secondary claim is that the new OrthoConv3D layer, built from Hamming-weight-preserving quantum circuits, can be embedded in the pipeline, and that executing its circuits on a current 127-qubit processor keeps the full reconstructed object within about $10^{-8}$ mean squared error of the noiseless result. If right, this would make Bayesian quantum-inspired networks a practical route to uncertainty-aware defect detection in industrial 3D-printing quality control.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the orthogonal layer built from reconfigurable beam splitter (RBS) gates, two-qubit rotations that preserve Hamming weight; input vectors are loaded into the unary subspace and the circuit implements an orthogonal matrix whose entries are trigonometric functions of the gate angles. Bayesian learning is applied directly to these angles: each angle is a Gaussian random variable with trainable mean and variance, optimised through the ELBO, so sampling the angles gives a distribution over orthogonal matrices. OrthoConv3D flattens each $d\times d\times d$ patch and each $k\times d^3$ kernel matrix, implements the kernel matrix as such a circuit, and multiplies it by the patch vectors. The expected calibration error (ECE) is the metric that carries the comparison, since it measures whether the model's stated confidence matches its accuracy across probability bins.

What would settle it

Re-run the four model families with a publicly specified reconstruction-error threshold and a fixed mapping from reconstruction error to confidence, training only on voxel blocks verified to be anomaly-free; if Bayesian ECE no longer beats point-estimate ECE under that exact protocol, the paper's central calibration claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that treating the rotation angles of orthogonal quantum neural-network layers as random variables, with means and variances learned by variational inference, produces models whose confidence is better calibrated than identical architectures trained by point-estimate gradient descent. In the autoencoder anomaly-detection pipeline, Bayesian training lowers the expected calibration error (ECE) for both fully connected networks and the new 3D orthogonal convolutional architecture, at the price of slightly lower precision, recall, and F1 score. The paper also introduces OrthoConv3D, a 3D convolutional layer whose flattened kernel matrix is enforced to be orthogonal via Hamming-weight-preserving quantum circuits, and reports that executing all 256 component circuits on quantum hardware leaves the full reconstructed object within roughly $10^{-8}$ mean squared error of the noiseless simulation. Orthogonality helps the feedforward models, giving competitive metrics with fewer parameters, but it does not beat classical 3D convolutions on the standard detection metrics.

Load-bearing premise

The reported calibration advantage rests on an unstated mapping from autoencoder reconstruction error to binary anomaly labels and to confidence probabilities for ECE, and on the unstated assumption that training blocks contain only normal voxels; the numbers in the tables stand or fall with those choices.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Bayesian training lowers ECE relative to point-estimate training across all four model families considered, so a deployment that prioritises calibrated confidence should prefer the Bayesian variant.
  • The orthogonal feedforward models achieve competitive detection metrics with fewer parameters than vanilla feedforward models, while the orthogonal 3D convolutions do not beat their classical counterparts on precision, recall, or F1.
  • The full autoencoder pipeline keeps reconstruction error near the noiseless value even when all 256 orthogonal circuits run on current quantum hardware, suggesting that device noise and limited shots are not blockers for this hybrid pipeline.
  • Because Bayesian training here trades away precision, recall, and F1 score, the choice between Bayesian and point-estimate training is a judgement about whether calibration or raw detection rate matters more for the application.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported ECE advantage is only as meaningful as the unstated mapping from autoencoder reconstruction error to anomaly labels and confidence probabilities; a reader cannot currently reproduce the calibration numbers from the text alone.
  • If the training set contains any anomalous voxel blocks, the autoencoder's premise that anomalies reconstruct poorly is weakened, so the SDA and LuDA comparisons may partly reflect memorisation rather than outlier detection.
  • The 8-qubit hardware demonstrations leave open whether larger orthogonal kernels retain the same noise tolerance; the linear-depth circuit construction suggests it could, but the paper does not test this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Bayesian learning of orthogonal (quantum) neural networks for anomaly detection in 3D CT scans of additively manufactured parts. The authors introduce OrthoConv3D, an orthogonal 3D convolution layer implemented with Hamming-weight-preserving circuits, embed it in an autoencoder, and compare Bayesian training against point-estimate training, Monte Carlo Dropout, and ensembling. They report metrics including precision, recall, F1, expected calibration error (ECE), and anomaly-size measures, and they present hardware experiments on IBM's 127-qubit Brisbane device showing that executing increasing fractions of the quantum circuits in the pipeline keeps the output MSE small.

Significance. If the evaluation pipeline were fully specified, the paper would make a useful contribution by combining Bayesian learning with orthogonal parameterizations for a practical anomaly detection task, and by demonstrating the architecture on real quantum hardware. The paper introduces a concrete architectural variant (OrthoConv3D) and uses a domain-relevant dataset with defect masks, which are strengths. However, the central comparison—the claimed ECE advantage of Bayesian methods—is not currently reproducible because the mapping from reconstruction error to the probabilities required by the ECE definition is never given, and the anomaly threshold and train/test split are unspecified. The hardware experiments are a useful feasibility data point but are limited to a single slice with no repeated runs or error bars. These issues block the central claims as written, though they appear fixable in a revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [2.7.1 and 4.2] The ECE values in Tables 1 and 2 and Figures 3, 4, and 6 are not well-defined because the paper never specifies how the continuous autoencoder reconstruction error is converted to the per-item predicted probabilities p_i required by Eq. (7). Section 4.2 defines only the heuristic that a good reconstruction implies non-anomalous and a bad reconstruction implies anomalous, while Section 2.7.1 uses p_i without connecting it to the model output. For point-estimate models, which have no natural probability over reconstruction error, no sigmoid, temperature scaling, Platt scaling, or threshold-based probability map is described. The headline claim that "Bayesian methods are clearly superior when ECE is the metric of interest" (Table 1 caption) is therefore not independently checkable, and the caption's reference to a "classification loss function" has no counterpart in the described pipeline.
  2. [4.1-4.2] The anomaly detection metrics are underdetermined by two unspecified choices. First, reconstruction error is a continuous scalar, but no threshold is given for declaring a block anomalous; precision, recall, F1, SDA, and LuDA all depend on that threshold. Second, the paper does not state whether the autoencoder is trained only on non-anomalous 16×16×16 blocks, nor how the train/test split is made relative to the roughly 5k scans. If anomalous blocks enter training, the outlier premise is weakened; if blocks from the same scan appear in both train and test, the metrics are optimistically correlated. These choices determine every number in Tables 1 and 2, so the comparisons cannot be reproduced from the text.
  3. [Tables 1-2 and Figures 3, 4, 6] All reported metrics are single point estimates without error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests, although the differences are small (e.g., ECE 0.209 vs 0.224 for Bayesian 3D-CNN vs 3D-QCNN in Table 2). The claimed Bayesian advantage and any orthogonality advantage are therefore not statistically supported. In addition, Table 2 shows the 3D-QCNN is worse than the 3D-CNN on every listed metric, which contradicts any general claim that orthogonality improves anomaly detection; the discussion acknowledges this, but the abstract and the Table 1 caption should be qualified to the feedforward setting only.
  4. [5.1-5.2] The hardware experiments support only a narrow conclusion. Figure 9 uses a single anomalous slice (slice 14 of one block), and the MSE values in the full-pipeline panel (c) come from one run, with no repeated measurements or variance estimate; the reported 1e-8 MSE may reflect the particular input. The fidelity estimate in Figure 8, eF = (ey·y)^2 with ey derived from estimated probabilities, is a heuristic rather than a standard fidelity estimator, and no error bars are shown for the device runs. The conclusion that quantum hardware can be incorporated into the pipeline would be more convincing with multiple inputs, repeated runs, and a description of how hardware error propagates to the final anomaly decision.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figures 3 and 6 captions] The subplot letters in the captions do not match the labels in the figures: Figure 6 lists "(c) Precision, (d) Recall, (e) F1-Score" while the panels are labeled (d) through (f), and Figure 3 labels the SDA panel as the "smallest undetected anomaly" instead of the "smallest detected anomaly."
  2. [Section 5.2] The sentence "we take an anomalous voxel and downscale to 16×16×16" should read "an anomalous voxel block" or "a 16×16×16 volume," since a single voxel is a scalar.
  3. [Section 3.1] The construction of the rectangular filter matrix F_l from k filters of size d^3 is not fully specified; in particular, the paragraph should state how the case k ≠ d^3 is handled when using the square ortholinear circuit parameterization, beyond noting the max(k, d^3) qubit requirement.
  4. [References] The reference list contains duplicate entries for the same paper (BCB+25a/25b and GPSM17a/17b); these should be consolidated.
  5. [Eq. (1)] The RBS gate matrix should be checked for sign conventions; as written, the (2,3) and (3,2) entries are consistent with the generator, but the ordering of basis states in the 4×4 matrix should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the Bayesian ELBO training, architecture comparisons, and hardware-vs-simulation checks are independent of the reported ECE metrics, though the ECE probability mapping is underspecified.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical comparisons (Bayesian vs point-estimate training, orthogonal vs vanilla layers, hardware vs simulation), not deductions from fitted constants. The Bayesian treatment of rotation angles via the ELBO in Eqs. (3)-(5) is a standard variational-inference argument, and the ECE in Eqs. (6)-(7) is a post-hoc evaluation metric; there is no equation in which ECE is used as the training objective or in which a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The orthogonal circuit construction is imported from prior work [LML+22, CKM+22] with author overlap (N. Mathur), but those works are used as architectural building blocks, not invoked to forbid alternatives or to justify the Bayesian advantage, so this is ordinary self-citation rather than load-bearing circularity. The most serious issue is that Section 4.2 defines anomaly detection only through reconstruction error (D(E(X)) ≈ X) while Eq. (7) requires per-item probabilities p_i, and the mapping from reconstruction error to p_i is never specified; this makes the ECE numbers difficult to audit, but an underspecified metric is a completeness/soundness problem, not a circularity. No step in the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is an empirical ML application; its load-bearing choices are the anomaly scoring pipeline, the variational approximation, and the label quality rather than new physical entities.

free parameters (3)
  • Anomaly detection threshold = not reported
    The autoencoder reconstruction error must be thresholded to classify blocks as anomalous; the threshold determines precision, recall, and ECE but is never specified or justified.
  • Probability mapping for ECE = not reported
    ECE requires a confidence p_i per prediction; the paper does not state how reconstruction error is converted to a probability.
  • Number of ECE bins M = not reported
    The number of bins in Eq. (6) is not given; ECE values are sensitive to binning.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Autoencoder reconstruction error is a valid anomaly score; anomalies are outliers that the autoencoder trained on normal data cannot reconstruct.
    Section 4.2 states the intuition but never states the training set composition.
  • domain assumption Mean-field Gaussian variational distribution with unit Gaussian priors is sufficient for calibrated uncertainty.
    Section 2.6 chooses mean-field for 'initial validation'; the impact of this approximation on ECE is not tested.
  • domain assumption The 3D CT data and anomaly masks are ground-truth correct.
    Section 4.1 describes masks but no validation of label quality.
  • domain assumption Quantum hardware noise can be mitigated by unary post-selection sufficiently for the pipeline.
    Section 5.1 uses post-selection and notes scalability is not guaranteed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bayesian Quantum Orthogonal Neural Networks for Anomaly Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WMCH5PYD

@misc{pith2026250418103,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bayesian Quantum Orthogonal Neural Networks for Anomaly Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WMCH5PYD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18103}
}
read the original abstract

Identification of defects or anomalies in 3D objects is a crucial task to ensure correct functionality. In this work, we combine Bayesian learning with recent developments in quantum and quantum-inspired machine learning, specifically orthogonal neural networks, to tackle this anomaly detection problem for an industrially relevant use case. Bayesian learning enables uncertainty quantification of predictions, while orthogonality in weight matrices enables smooth training. We develop orthogonal (quantum) versions of 3D convolutional neural networks and show that these models can successfully detect anomalies in 3D objects. To test the feasibility of incorporating quantum computers into a quantum-enhanced anomaly detection pipeline, we perform hardware experiments with our models on IBM's 127-qubit Brisbane device, testing the effect of noise and limited measurement shots.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18103 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed anomaly detection pipeline using orthogonal neural networks. The 3D object (data point) is passed through 3D convolutional layers of the autoencoder, which are parametrised with orthogonal weight matrices. In the autoencoder framework, an Encoder compresses information to a 3D latent space, and a Decoder attempts to reconstruct the image from it. If the reconstruction is deemed successful, t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Parametrised quantum circuit for an 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparing uncertainty prediction approaches with feedforward architectures. Each plot shows a different metric, for each of the approaches. a) Expected Calibration Error (ECE), which is our quantifier of a robust predictor. b) The smallest detected anomaly (SDA) and largest undetected anomaly (LuDA) for each model. Finally, standard supervised metrics, d) Precision, e) Recall and f) F1-Score. For both FNN and QFNN a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A schematic diagram for showing convolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Model uncertainty measured by ECE. Bayesian learning versus point-estimate gradient descent for classical and quantum (orthogonal) neural networks within autoencoder anomaly detection pipeline. Bayesian learning outperforms non-Bayesian methods relative to the Estimate…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparing uncertainty prediction approaches with 3D architectures. Each plot shows a different metric for each approach. a) Estimated Calibration Error (ECE), our quantifier for robust predictions. b) The smallest undetected anomaly (SDA) and largest undetected anomaly…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Decomposed anomalous voxel. 16 slices of 16 × 16 pixels. We choose slice 14 containing an anomaly to focus on for the hardware experiments. 5 Quantum hardware experi￾ments 5.1 Computing fidelities To begin, we run a simple experiment to test the ef￾fects of 1) measurem…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Fidelity plots for ortholinear circuits. Fidelity plots incorporating only shot noise (QASM simulator), simulated device noise for IBM Brisbane QPU (‘Fake’ Brisbane) and the real Brisbane QPU, using 8 qubits in all cases. Number of shots taken to measure fidelity in ea…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mean squared error (MSE) for different model ingredients. Take X to be the full voxel, with reference slice Xj,k := [X ]j,k,14. The input to any given orthogonal quantum layer within the architecture is a vector, denoted x, created as an 8 dimensional feature vector fr…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Variational autoencoder based anomaly detection using reconstruction probability

    Jinwon An and Sungzoon Cho. Variational autoencoder based anomaly detection using reconstruction probability. Special lecture on IE , 2(1):1--18, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    explainable artificial intelligence for automatic defect detection in additively manufactured parts using ct scan analysis

    Harsh Bordekar, Nicola Cersullo, Marco Brysch, Jens Philipp, and Christian H \"u hne. explainable artificial intelligence for automatic defect detection in additively manufactured parts using ct scan analysis. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing , 36(2):957--974, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    eXplainable artificial intelligence for automatic defect detection in additively manufactured parts using CT scan analysis

    Harsh Bordekar, Nicola Cersullo, Marco Brysch, Jens Philipp, and Christian Hühne. eXplainable artificial intelligence for automatic defect detection in additively manufactured parts using CT scan analysis. J Intell Manuf , 36(2):957--974, February 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Variational Inference with a Quantum Computer

    Marcello Benedetti, Brian Coyle, Mattia Fiorentini, Michael Lubasch, and Matthias Rosenkranz. Variational Inference with a Quantum Computer . Phys. Rev. Appl. , 16(4):044057, October 2021. Publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Ct artifacts: causes and reduction techniques

    F Edward Boas, Dominik Fleischmann, et al. Ct artifacts: causes and reduction techniques. Imaging Med , 4(2):229--240, 2012

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Quantum Bayesian Neural Networks

    Noah Berner, Vincent Fortuin, and Jonas Landman. Quantum Bayesian Neural Networks , July 2021. arXiv:2107.09599 [quant-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Quantum vision transformers

    El Amine Cherrat, Iordanis Kerenidis, Natansh Mathur, Jonas Landman, Martin Strahm, and Yun Yvonna Li. Quantum vision transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.08167 , 2022

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Does provable absence of barren plateaus imply classical simulability? or, why we need to rethink variational quantum computing

    Marco Cerezo, Martin Larocca, Diego Garc \' a-Mart \' n, Nelson L Diaz, Paolo Braccia, Enrico Fontana, Manuel S Rudolph, Pablo Bermejo, Aroosa Ijaz, Supanut Thanasilp, et al. Does provable absence of barren plateaus imply classical simulability? or, why we need to rethink variational quantum computing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09121 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Effect of internal defects on the fatigue behavior of additive manufactured metal components: a comparison between ti6al4v and inconel 718

    Nicola Cersullo, Jon Mardaras, Philippe Emile, Katja Nickel, Vitus Holzinger, and Christian H \"u hne. Effect of internal defects on the fatigue behavior of additive manufactured metal components: a comparison between ti6al4v and inconel 718. Materials , 15(19):6882, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Effect of Internal Defects on the Fatigue Behavior of Additive Manufactured Metal Components : A Comparison between Ti6Al4V and Inconel 718

    Nicola Cersullo, Jon Mardaras, Philippe Emile, Katja Nickel, Vitus Holzinger, and Christian Hühne. Effect of Internal Defects on the Fatigue Behavior of Additive Manufactured Metal Components : A Comparison between Ti6Al4V and Inconel 718. Materials , 15(19), 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Paul B. Chou, A. Ravishankar Rao, Martin C. Sturzenbecker, Frederick Y. Wu, and Virginia H. Brecher. Automatic defect classification for semiconductor manufacturing. Machine Vision and Applications , 9(4):201--214, February 1997

    1997

  4. [12]

    Bayesian learning of parameterised quantum circuits

    Samuel Duffield, Marcello Benedetti, and Matthias Rosenkranz. Bayesian learning of parameterised quantum circuits. Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol. , 4(2):025007, April 2023. Publisher: IOP Publishing

    2023

  5. [13]

    Quantum multi-agent reinforcement learning for aerial ad-hoc networks, 2025

    Theodora-Augustina Dragan, Akshat Tandon, Tom Haider, Carsten Strobel, Jasper Simon Krauser, and Jeanette Miriam Lorenz. Quantum multi-agent reinforcement learning for aerial ad-hoc networks, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    The adjoint is all you need: Characterizing barren plateaus in quantum ans " atze

    Enrico Fontana, Dylan Herman, Shouvanik Chakrabarti, Niraj Kumar, Romina Yalovetzky, Jamie Heredge, Shree Hari Sureshbabu, and Marco Pistoia. The adjoint is all you need: Characterizing barren plateaus in quantum ans " atze. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07902 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Generating meaningful synthetic ground truth for pore detection in cast aluminum parts

    Patrick Fuchs, Thorben Kr \"o ger, Tobias Dierig, and Christoph S Garbe. Generating meaningful synthetic ground truth for pore detection in cast aluminum parts. In 9th conference on industrial computed tomography (ICT), Padova, Italy , pages 13--15, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation : Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learning

    Yarin Gal and Zoubin Ghahramani. Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation : Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learning . In Maria Florina Balcan and Kilian Q. Weinberger, editors, Proceedings of The 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 48 of Proceedings o...

    2016

  9. [17]

    Interfacial Reactions and Fracture Behavior of Ti Alloy - Ag28Cu Brazing Joints : Influence of Titanium Alloy Composition

    Joachim Gussone, Galina Kasperovich, Jan Haubrich, and Guillermo Requena. Interfacial Reactions and Fracture Behavior of Ti Alloy - Ag28Cu Brazing Joints : Influence of Titanium Alloy Composition . Metals , 8(10):830, October 2018. Number: 10 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digit...

    2018

  10. [18]

    Micro-ct evaluation of defects in ti-6al-4v parts fabricated by metal additive manufacturing

    Haijun Gong, Venkata Karthik Nadimpalli, Khalid Rafi, Thomas Starr, and Brent Stucker. Micro-ct evaluation of defects in ti-6al-4v parts fabricated by metal additive manufacturing. Technologies , 7(2):44, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Fatigue performance of additive manufactured TiAl6V4 using electron and laser beam melting

    Daniel Greitemeier, Frank Palm, Freerk Syassen, and Tobias Melz. Fatigue performance of additive manufactured TiAl6V4 using electron and laser beam melting. International Journal of Fatigue , 94:211--217, January 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Fatigue performance of additive manufactured tial6v4 using electron and laser beam melting

    Daniel Greitemeier, Frank Palm, Freerk Syassen, and Tobias Melz. Fatigue performance of additive manufactured tial6v4 using electron and laser beam melting. International Journal of Fatigue , 94:211--217, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Additive Manufacturing Technologies

    Ian Gibson, David Rosen, Brent Stucker, and Mahyar Khorasani. Additive Manufacturing Technologies . Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Herzog, M

    T. Herzog, M. Brandt, A. Trinchi, A. Sola, and A. Molotnikov. Process monitoring and machine learning for defect detection in laser-based metal additive manufacturing. J. Intell. Manuf. , 35(4):1407–1437, April 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Unsupervised fabric defect detection based on a deep convolutional generative adversarial network

    Guanghua Hu, Junfeng Huang, Qinghui Wang, Jingrong Li, Zhijia Xu, and Xingbiao Huang. Unsupervised fabric defect detection based on a deep convolutional generative adversarial network. Textile Research Journal , 90(3-4):247--270, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Anomaly Detection in Process Monitoring Data of Additive Manufacturing by Neural Networks

    Jonas Holtmann. Anomaly Detection in Process Monitoring Data of Additive Manufacturing by Neural Networks . PhD thesis, Technische Universität München, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Nearest centroid classification on a trapped ion quantum computer

    Sonika Johri, Shantanu Debnath, Avinash Mocherla, Alexandros Singk, Anupam Prakash, Jungsang Kim, and Iordanis Kerenidis. Nearest centroid classification on a trapped ion quantum computer. npj Quantum Information , 7(1):1--11, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Quantum fourier networks for solving parametric pdes

    Nishant Jain, Jonas Landman, Natansh Mathur, and Iordanis Kerenidis. Quantum fourier networks for solving parametric pdes. Quantum Science and Technology , 9(3):035026, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Orthogonal deep neural networks

    Kui Jia, Shuai Li, Yuxin Wen, Tongliang Liu, and Dacheng Tao. Orthogonal deep neural networks. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Improving training of deep neural networks via singular value bounding

    Kui Jia, Dacheng Tao, Shenghua Gao, and Xiangmin Xu. Improving training of deep neural networks via singular value bounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 4344--4352, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Quantum algorithms for deep convolutional neural networks

    Iordanis Kerenidis, Jonas Landman, and Anupam Prakash. Quantum algorithms for deep convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.01117 , 2019

    1911 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Quantum machine learning with subspace states

    Iordanis Kerenidis and Anupam Prakash. Quantum machine learning with subspace states. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.00054 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Benjamin Kompa, Jasper Snoek, and Andrew L. Beam. Second opinion needed: communicating uncertainty in medical machine learning. NPJ Digit Med , 4(1):4, January 2021. Place: England

    2021

  24. [32]

    Computed tomography of additive manufactured components in aeronautic industry

    Denis Kiefel, Marine Scius-Bertrand, and Rainer St \"o el. Computed tomography of additive manufactured components in aeronautic industry. In 8th Conference on Industrial Computed Tomography , volume 2018, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Computed Tomography of Additive Manufactured Components in Aeronautic Industry

    Denis Kiefel, Marine Scius-Bertrand, and Rainer Stössel. Computed Tomography of Additive Manufactured Components in Aeronautic Industry . 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Quantum methods for neural networks and application to medical image classification

    Jonas Landman, Natansh Mathur, Yun Yvonna Li, Martin Strahm, Skander Kazdaghli, Anupam Prakash, and Iordanis Kerenidis. Quantum methods for neural networks and application to medical image classification. Quantum , 6:881, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Autonomous in-situ defect detection and correction in additive-lathe 3d printing process using variational autoencoder model

    Seung-Mun Lee and Suk-Hee Park. Autonomous in-situ defect detection and correction in additive-lathe 3d printing process using variational autoencoder model. Additive Manufacturing , 98:104635, 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles

    Balaji Lakshminarayanan, Alexander Pritzel, and Charles Blundell. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , NIPS '17, pages 6405--6416, Red Hook, NY...

    2017

  29. [37]

    Exploring the role of explainable ai in the development and qualification of aircraft quality assurance processes: A case study

    Bj \"o rn Milcke, Pascal Dinglinger, and Jonas Holtmann. Exploring the role of explainable ai in the development and qualification of aircraft quality assurance processes: A case study. In World Conference on Explainable Artificial Intelligence , pages 331--352. Springer, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Trainability and expressivity of hamming-weight preserving quantum circuits for machine learning

    L \'e o Monbroussou, Jonas Landman, Alex B Grilo, Romain Kukla, and Elham Kashefi. Trainability and expressivity of hamming-weight preserving quantum circuits for machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15547 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Steel defect classification with max-pooling convolutional neural networks

    Jonathan Masci, Ueli Meier, Dan Ciresan, J \"u rgen Schmidhuber, and Gabriel Fricout. Steel defect classification with max-pooling convolutional neural networks. In The 2012 international joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN) , pages 1--6. IEEE, 2012

    2012

  32. [40]

    Bayesian Optimization : Open source constrained global optimization tool for Python , 2014

    Fernando Nogueira. Bayesian Optimization : Open source constrained global optimization tool for Python , 2014

    2014

  33. [41]

    J. S. Otterbach, R. Manenti, N. Alidoust, A. Bestwick, M. Block, B. Bloom, S. Caldwell, N. Didier, E. Schuyler Fried, S. Hong, P. Karalekas, C. B. Osborn, A. Papageorge, E. C. Peterson, G. Prawiroatmodjo, N. Rubin, Colm A. Ryan, D. Scarabelli, M. Scheer, E. A. Sete, P. Sivaraj...

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    T. Y. Ong, Z. Samad, and M. M. Ratnam. Solder joint inspection with multi-angle imaging and an artificial neural network. Int J Adv Manuf Technol , 38(5):455--462, August 2008

    2008

  35. [43]

    Quantum deep hedging

    Snehal Raj, Iordanis Kerenidis, Abhishek Shekhar, Ben Wood, Jon Dee, Shouvanik Chakrabarti, Richard Chen, Dylan Herman, Shaohan Hu, Pierre Minssen, et al. Quantum deep hedging. Quantum , 7:1191, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Dropout: A Simple Way to Prevent Neural Networks from Overfitting

    Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Dropout: A Simple Way to Prevent Neural Networks from Overfitting . Journal of Machine Learning Research , 15(56):1929--1958, 2014

    1929

  37. [45]

    Exact solutions to the nonlinear dynamics of learning in deep linear neural networks

    Andrew M Saxe, James L McClelland, and Surya Ganguli. Exact solutions to the nonlinear dynamics of learning in deep linear neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6120 , 2013

    2013 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Supervised Learning with Tensor Networks

    Edwin Stoudenmire and David J Schwab. Supervised Learning with Tensor Networks . In D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, U. Luxburg, I. Guyon, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 29. Curran Associates, Inc., 2016

    2016

  39. [47]

    Explainable deep learning models in medical image analysis

    Amitojdeep Singh, Sourya Sengupta, and Vasudevan Lakshminarayanan. Explainable deep learning models in medical image analysis. Journal of imaging , 6(6):52, 2020

    2020

  40. [48]

    Deep adversarial learning system for fault diagnosis in fused deposition modeling with imbalanced data

    Longyan Tan, Tingting Huang, Jie Liu, Qian Li, and Xin Wu. Deep adversarial learning system for fault diagnosis in fused deposition modeling with imbalanced data. Computers & Industrial Engineering , 176:108887, 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

    Improved financial forecasting via quantum machine learning

    Sohum Thakkar, Skander Kazdaghli, Natansh Mathur, Iordanis Kerenidis, Andr \'e J Ferreira-Martins, and Samurai Brito. Improved financial forecasting via quantum machine learning. Quantum Machine Intelligence , 6(1):27, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    Anomaly detection of core failures in die casting x-ray inspection images using a convolutional autoencoder

    Weitao Tang, Corey M Vian, Ziyang Tang, and Baijian Yang. Anomaly detection of core failures in die casting x-ray inspection images using a convolutional autoencoder. Machine Vision and Applications , 32(4):102, 2021

    2021

  43. [51]

    Orthogonal convolutional neural networks

    Jiayun Wang, Yubei Chen, Rudrasis Chakraborty, and Stella X Yu. Orthogonal convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 11505--11515, 2020

    2020

  44. [52]

    Gan-based anomaly detection: A review

    Xuan Xia, Xizhou Pan, Nan Li, Xing He, Lin Ma, Xiaoguang Zhang, and Ning Ding. Gan-based anomaly detection: A review. Neurocomputing , 493:497--535, 2022

    2022

  45. [53]

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

    Han Xiao, Kashif Rasul, and Roland Vollgraf. Fashion-mnist: a novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07747 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Additive manufacturing of fatigue resistant materials: Challenges and opportunities

    Aref Yadollahi and Nima Shamsaei. Additive manufacturing of fatigue resistant materials: Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Fatigue , 98:14--31, May 2017

    2017

  47. [55]

    Anomaly detection with robust deep autoencoders

    Chong Zhou and Randy C Paffenroth. Anomaly detection with robust deep autoencoders. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining , pages 665--674, 2017

    2017

  48. [56]

    Bayesian deep learning on a quantum computer

    Zhikuan Zhao, Alejandro Pozas-Kerstjens, Patrick Rebentrost, and Peter Wittek. Bayesian deep learning on a quantum computer. Quantum Mach. Intell. , 1(1):41--51, May 2019

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.