Expressive Power and Limitations of Multi-photon Quantum Neural Networks

Junjie Wu; Lingling Lao; Weixu Shi; Yizhi Wang; Zeyu Xiao

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 29 references

Expressive Power and Limitations of Multi-photon Quantum Neural Networks

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 Multi-photon QNNs gain from extra photons only up to a mode-count threshold.

desk verdict A useful formal analysis of MPQNN expressivity that overstates its main conclusion: the claimed photon-number threshold at n=m−2 is not supported and, for m=3,n=2, false. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01365 v1 pith:YVIQVUCG submitted 2026-08-02 quant-ph

Zeyu Xiao , Weixu Shi , Yizhi Wang , Lingling Lao , Junjie Wu This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph MSC 81P6841A1041A25

keywords multi-photonquantumneuralnetworksexpressivityapproximationerrorboundstrigonometricpolynomiallinearopticalFockstateencodingphoton-numberthresholdJackson'sinequality

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether adding more photons to a data-re-uploading quantum neural network built from a linear optical network reliably increases what the network can learn to approximate. Its answer is quantitative and conditional on how the measurement is handled: for a fixed measurement observable, the proved approximation-rate bound improves with photon number $n$ only until $n$ reaches $m-2$, where $m$ is the number of modes, and then stops improving; for a trainable observable, the bound keeps improving as $n$ grows. The argument rests on a complete description of the model's outputs as $g(y_1,\ldots,y_m)$, a polynomial of degree at most $n$ applied to a collection of nonnegative trigonometric polynomials of degree at most $L$ that sum to one. If the bounds are tight in spirit, they give a practical design rule: below the threshold, photons buy polynomial spectral power essentially for free; above it, the circuit has no free trainable parameters left to use them.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the assignment map $\pi_g(y_1,\ldots,y_m)(x)=g(y_1(x),\ldots,y_m(x))$, which expresses every MPQNN output as a degree-constrained polynomial in $m$ nonnegative, unit-sum trigonometric polynomials. The proof chain is: Lemma 4 characterizes the first column of the effective linear-optical unitary as an arbitrary normalized vector of degree-$L$ trigonometric polynomials; Fejér–Riesz converts each nonnegative $y_j$ into $|u_{j,1}|^2$; a concrete $y$ and $g$ are built from Chebyshev antiderivatives so that the derivative map has rank $2dL+1$, and an open mapping argument lifts this local surjectivity to the inclusion $P_{dL}\subseteq H_g$ for $d=\min\{n,m-2\}$; Jackson's inequality converts the inclusion into the stated approximation rates. This machinery is what produces the threshold: the constructed inclusion saturates at $d=m-2$ for fixed observables, while the trainable-observable family obtains a second, independent inclusion from convex-geometry arguments that keeps growing with $n$.

What would settle it

A direct check of the proof's key inclusion: take $m=4$, $n=2$, $L=1$ and the polynomial $g$ constructed in Lemma 6, then verify numerically whether every real trigonometric polynomial of degree $2$ can be written as $\alpha\pi_g(y)$ for some $y\in\Delta$ and $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}$; a single degree-$2$ polynomial that cannot be represented would invalidate $P_{dL}\subseteq H_g$. At the model level, train a fixed-observable MPQNN (without rescaling) for $m=4$ on a fixed smooth target at $n=2$ and $n=5$; systematic improvement at $n=5$ would contradict the claimed saturation of expressivity past $m-2$ for the physical model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a representation theorem plus two rate bounds. Theorem 1 states that an MPQNN with $n$ identical photons, $m$ modes, and $L$ layers can output exactly the functions $h(x)=g(y_1(x),\ldots,y_m(x))$, where $g\in\mathbb{R}[x_1,\ldots,x_m]$ has total degree at most $n$ and each $y_j$ is a real trigonometric polynomial of degree at most $L$ with $y_j\ge 0$ and $\sum_j y_j=1$. For a fixed observable, the paper proves there exists a single polynomial $g$ such that every $K$-times differentiable $2\pi$-periodic $f$ satisfies $\inf_{h\in H_g}\|f-h\|_\infty \le C_K\|f^{(K)}\|_\infty/(dL)^K$ with $d=\min\{n,m-2\}$, where $H_g$ is the rescaled family $\{\alpha\pi_g(y):y\in\Delta,\alpha\in\mathbb{R}\}$. For a trainable observable, the corresponding family $H$ (arbitrary $g$ of degree at most $n$) satisfies $\inf_{h\in H}\|f-h\|_\infty \le C_K\|f^{(K)}\|_\infty/d^K$ with $d=\min\{nL,\max\{(m-2)L,n\lfloor(m-1)/2\rfloor\}\}$. The paper reads these bounds as: in the fixed-observable case photon number is a resource only up to the mode-dependent threshold $m-2$; in the trainable-observable case it is an unlimited resource.

Load-bearing premise

The fixed-observable bound holds for the rescaled hypothesis space $H_g=\{\alpha\pi_g(y):y\in\Delta,\alpha\in\mathbb{R}\}$, not for the physical output of an MPQNN with a fixed observable, and the paper does not show the physical model approximates the unscaled target at the same rate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In the fixed-observable case, setting $n=m-2$ already saturates the proved spectral reach; values $n>m-2$ do not lower the bound even though the underlying Fock space is much larger.
In the trainable-observable case, the bound tends to zero as $n\to\infty$, so photon number is a genuine hyperparameter for expressivity without changing the interferometer structure.
The trainable-observable model pays for this with $\binom{n+m-1}{m-1}$ extra classical weights, an exponentially growing cost in $n$.
Setting $n=1$ reduces the MPQNN hypothesis space to the familiar degree-$L$ trigonometric-polynomial family of data-re-uploading QNNs.
The numerical simulations, using the paper's dynamic-programming simulator, show test loss decreasing as photon number and layer number increase, matching the predicted qualitative scaling.

Reading between the lines

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

The fixed-observable saturation is most plausibly a parameter-counting effect: the trainable part of the interferometer has $\Theta(mL)$ parameters independent of $n$, so beyond $n\approx m-2$ the extra spectral dimensions have no trainable degrees of freedom to steer them; a direct probe would be to count how many independent Fourier coefficients can actually be tuned at $n>m-2$.
Because Theorem 2 is an existence statement for one specially constructed $g$, it does not by itself tell an experimenter which fixed observable to pick; a testable extension would be to check whether randomly initialized fixed observables also show the same saturation, or whether only the optimally chosen one does.
The representation theorem suggests a classical proxy for studying MPQNN expressivity: optimize over polynomials $g$ of degree $n$ applied to the boundary of the convex set of nonnegative degree-$L$ trigonometric polynomials; if the proxy reproduces the $(dL)^{-K}$ rates, it would let practitioners estimate achievable errors for large $n$ without simulating bosonic amplitudes.

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

First, this is not a throwaway. The hypothesis-space characterization in Theorem 1 is genuinely new and useful: it gives a clean description of all MPQNN outputs as polynomial functions of the mode probabilities, generalizing the m=2 single-photon result. The trainable-observable bound in Theorem 3 is also a real contribution, as is the dynamic-programming simulation algorithm. If all you take from this paper is the positive approximation bounds, they are worth having.

The problem is the headline. The paper claims that with a fixed observable, increasing the photon number n beyond m−2 does not affect expressivity. The proof establishes only that for a specially constructed g, the space P_{min(n,m-2)L} sits inside H_g. That is an upper-bound construction, not an impossibility result. The paper's own Sard argument (Eq. B30) allows degree coverage up to roughly (m−1)L, already larger than dL = (m−2)L. And the limitation claim is not just unsupported; it is false as stated. For m=3, n=2, L=1, take y_1 = 1/3+ε cos x, y_2 = 1/3+ε sin x, y_3 = 1/3−ε(cos x+sin x), and g = A[(x_1−1/3)^2+(x_2−1/3)^2−ε^2]. Then g(y)=0 and Dπ_g(y)(T) = 2Aε(cos x P_1 + sin x P_1) = P_2, so the open-mapping argument gives P_2 ⊆ H_g. With n=1 you only get P_1. So the second photon does change expressivity, contradicting the threshold at m−2=1. The correct threshold appears to be m−1, consistent with the Sard bound.

There is also a concrete error in the proof of Lemma 6: the displayed equations (B18)–(B21) cancel to zero because the negative term for the (d+1)-th variable is dropped. The construction is repairable—write the image as a sum of q'_j(cos Lx)(v_j−v_{d+1})—but the printed derivation is wrong.

One minor caveat on Theorem 2: the guarantee is for H_g = {απ_g(y)}, with a free rescale coefficient α not present in the physical output (7). This is a standard normalization trick, and the paper cites precedent, but it should be stated more carefully.

The numerical section tests only the trainable-observable case, so it does not validate the fixed-observable saturation. Bottom line: the paper has valuable formal content, but the central limitation claim needs to be either proved (I doubt it) or rephrased as a property of the constructed observable rather than of the model. I would send it to peer review—the hypothesis-space theorem alone justifies that—but with a clear instruction to the authors to fix the overreach.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper studies the expressivity of multi-photon quantum neural networks (MPQNNs), in which n identical photons pass through L layers of alternating phase-encoding and trainable linear-optical unitaries, followed by measurement of a diagonal observable in the Fock basis. Theorem 1 characterizes the set of possible outputs as h = π_g(y_1,...,y_m), where g is a real polynomial of total degree at most n and (y_1,...,y_m) ∈ Δ is the family of nonnegative trigonometric polynomials of degree at most L summing to 1. For a fixed observable, the paper claims (Theorem 2) an approximation bound inf_{h∈H_g} ||f−h||_∞ ≤ C_K ||f^{(K)}||_∞/(dL)^K with d = min{n, m−2}, and interprets this as a photon-number threshold m−2 above which additional photons do not enhance expressivity. For a trainable observable, Theorem 3 claims a bound that continues to improve as n grows. The proofs combine Jackson's inequality with explicit constructions of trigonometric-polynomial subspaces and an open-mapping argument. Numerical simulations of trainable-observable MPQNNs are reported.

Significance. The questions addressed are timely, and the hypothesis-space characterization in Theorem 1 is a potentially useful contribution. The paper is self-contained and its overall strategy—Jackson's inequality plus explicit trigonometric-polynomial realization—is appropriate for the problem. The dynamic-programming simulation algorithm in Appendix D is also a practical contribution. However, the central fixed-observable threshold claim is not established and, as stated, is false. The sign error in the derivative computation of Lemma 6 invalidates the proof of Theorem 2 as written; the inference from an upper bound to a saturation threshold is logically unsupported; and the paper's own Sard count plus an explicit m=3, n=2 construction contradict the claimed threshold m−2. In addition, the fixed-observable hypothesis space H_g includes a free rescaling coefficient α that is not present in the physical output defined in Eq. (7), so the fixed-observable approximation guarantee is for an augmented model. The trainable-observable bound appears more plausible and may be salvageable, but the advertised limitation result cannot be accepted in its current form.

major comments (3)

[Appendix B, Eqs. (B18)–(B21)] The derivative computation in Lemma 6 contains a sign error. With g_j = ∂g/∂x_j, the construction gives g_j(y) = (1/ε) q'_j(cos(Lx)) for j ≤ d and g_{d+1}(y) = −(1/ε) ∑_{i=1}^d q'_i(cos(Lx)). Therefore the two sums displayed in Eq. (B20) cancel exactly, and the computation yields Dπ_g(y)(T) = 0, not P_{dL}. Consequently Lemma 6 does not prove P_{dL} ⊆ H_g, and the proof of Theorem 2 collapses at this point. A corrected construction (for example, arranging the y_j so that the individual derivatives do not cancel, or using a different balancing argument) is needed before the bound can be accepted.
[Section IV and abstract (threshold claim)] The claimed photon-number threshold m−2 is not a consequence of Theorem 2. Theorem 2 is an existence statement: it shows that one particular polynomial g achieves an error bound with d = min{n, m−2}. It does not rule out the possibility that another fixed observable g' realizes P_N with N > (m−2)L. The paper's own Sard-count bound in Eq. (B30) gives N ≤ min{nL, (m−1)L + ⌊(m−1)/2⌋}, which for m=3, n=2, L=1 permits N=2, not just N=1. Moreover, an explicit counterexample refutes the threshold: for m=3, n=2, L=1, take y_1 = 1/3 + ε cos x, y_2 = 1/3 + ε sin x, y_3 = 1/3 − ε(cos x + sin x), and g = A[(x_1−1/3)^2 + (x_2−1/3)^2 − ε^2]. Then y ∈ Δ, g(y)=0, and Dπ_g(y)(T) = 2Aε(cos x P_1 + sin x P_1) = P_2. By the same open-mapping argument used in Lemma 6, P_2 ⊆ H_g. Since n=1 realises only P_1, increasing n from 1 to 2 changes the expressivity even though m−2 = 1. The saturation claim must therefore be revised or removed.
[Section III, Eq. (13)] The fixed-observable hypothesis space H_g includes a free rescaling coefficient α multiplying π_g(y), but the physical MPQNN output in Eq. (7) contains no such coefficient. All fixed-observable approximation guarantees in Theorem 2 are therefore for the augmented family H_g, not for the fixed-observable MPQNN as defined. This is a load-bearing distinction: without α, the output range is bounded by the range of g on the simplex, so a fixed-observable MPQNN cannot approximate arbitrary continuous periodic functions to arbitrary accuracy. The paper should either prove the stated error decay for appropriately rescaled target functions within the physical model, or explicitly and prominently state that the theorem concerns the affine-rescaled model.

minor comments (3)

[Section III] There is a typo: 'resacle coefficient' should be 'rescale coefficient'.
[Appendix B, after Eq. (B30)] The sentence describing Eq. (B30) as 'asymptotically the same as min{n,m−2}L' is inaccurate: for fixed m and n→∞, the bound behaves like (m−1)L + ⌊(m−1)/2⌋, which differs from (m−2)L by about L.
[Section VI] The numerical experiments train both the linear-optical parameters and the measured observable, so Fig. 2 does not directly validate the fixed-observable threshold claim of Section IV. The text should clarify which theoretical claim the simulations are intended to support.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the expressivity bounds are derived from explicit constructions and Jackson's inequality; the advertised saturation threshold is an over-inference from an upper bound, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 1 is proven from the permanent expansion of Fock amplitudes and the Fejer-Riesz factorization, with Lemma 4 giving an explicit synthesis of the first column of the linear-optical unitary. Theorem 2's proof constructs a concrete polynomial g (antiderivatives of Chebyshev polynomials) and a concrete interior point y in Delta, verifies D pi_g(y)(T) = P_{dL}, and applies Sussmann's open mapping theorem to obtain P_{dL} subset of H_g; the error bound then follows from Jackson's inequality. None of the constants or degree cutoffs are fitted to the target f or to numerical data; the d = min{n, m-2} arises from the degree of the constructed g, and the bound is an upper bound. The rescale coefficient alpha in Eq. (13) is an explicitly declared modeling convention cited to external works [9,10,25], not a hidden fit. Self-citations [19,20] give background and context and are not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem by the authors is invoked to forbid alternatives. The main caveat is Section IV's interpretation that the min implies a hard saturation threshold at n = m-2; Theorem 2 only establishes existence of one g with that error bound and does not rule out better fixed observables using photons beyond m-2. This is a correctness or over-claim issue, not circularity: the claimed threshold is not forced by definition of the model's output, and the proof does not reduce the saturation statement to the bound. Hence no circular step qualifies under the hard-rule standard.

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

No data-fitted parameters; the constants C_K are standard Jackson constants. The main additional premises are standard theorems (Fejer-Riesz, Jackson, open mapping, Sard, simplex containment) plus the modeling assumption that a rescale coefficient may be inserted in the fixed-observable hypothesis space.

assumptions (7)

standard math Fejer-Riesz theorem: every nonnegative trigonometric polynomial is the modulus squared of a trigonometric polynomial
Used in the proof of Theorem 1 (Appendix A) to factor y_j(x) = |u_{j,1}(x)|^2.
standard math Jackson's inequality for periodic functions
Used in Theorems 2 and 3 to bound the approximation error of trig polynomials; Proposition 5, Appendix B.
standard math Sussmann's open mapping theorem for smooth maps
Used in Lemma 6 (Appendix B) to conclude that surjectivity of Dπ_g(y)|_T implies a neighborhood of zero in P_{dL} lies in π_g(Δ).
standard math Sard's theorem and dimension counting for smooth maps
Used in Lemma 6 (Appendix B) to derive the necessary condition N ≤ min{nL, (m-1)L + (m-1)/2} for P_N ⊆ H_g.
standard math Any compact subset of R^{2d} lies in some (2d+1)-vertex simplex
Used in Lemma 7 (Appendix C) to represent z(x) as a convex combination of fixed vectors; true for compact sets but not proven in the paper.
domain assumption Universal linear optical networks can implement any unitary (Reck/Clements decomposition)
Invoked in Section II to justify that the trainable blocks U_l can be treated as arbitrary unitaries.
ad hoc to paper Admissibility of adding a rescale coefficient α to the fixed-observable hypothesis space
Eq. (13) defines H_g = {α π_g(y)}; this augmentation is not part of the physical output in Eq. (7) and is introduced to make the fixed-observable approximation problem well-posed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Expressive Power and Limitations of Multi-photon Quantum Neural Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YVIQVUCG

@misc{pith2026260801365,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Expressive Power and Limitations of Multi-photon Quantum Neural Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YVIQVUCG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01365}
}

read the original abstract

Quantum neural networks (QNNs) have shown promise in leveraging quantum computation for machine learning tasks. Utilizing multiple identical photons as input, multi-photon quantum neural networks (MPQNNs) have the potential to enhance the expressivity through increasing the photon number. However, how precisely the expressivity of an MPQNN is affected by an increase in photon number, and whether it can be infinitely enhanced by increasing the photon number, remains unexplored. In this work, we quantitatively estimate the expressivity of this model by deriving upper bounds on approximation error in two cases. In the case of a fixed observable, there exists a threshold that scales linearly with the mode number. Below the threshold, the expressivity of an MPQNN can be enhanced polynomially by increasing the photon number. Above the threshold, however, increasing the photon number does not affect the expressivity. In the case of a trainable observable, the expressivity can always be enhanced polynomially by increasing the photon number. These findings are then validated by numerical simulations. Our work elucidates the performance enhancement of multi-photon quantum feature in QNNs, as well as its limitations, offering guidance for leveraging multi-photon advantages in quantum machine learning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01365 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. The model of MPQNNs. The model can be divided into the circuit part and the observable part. Phase shifters that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (a) Approximation functions by an MPQNN with 4 layers. The photon number varies from 1 to 5. (b) Losses on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[1]

Cerezo, G

M. Cerezo, G. Verdon, H.-Y. Huang, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning, Nature Computational Science2, 567 (2022)

2022
[2]

Abbas, D

A. Abbas, D. Sutter, C. Zoufal, A. Lucchi, A. Figalli, and S. Woerner, The power of quantum neural networks, Nature Computational Science1, 403 (2021)

2021
[3]

Bharti, A

K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, 12 Algorithm 1:calculation of amplitudes Input:n, m,s,t, U Output:⟨t| ˆU|s⟩ F unctionAMP(s, t): ifamp[s, t]is definedthen returnamp[s, t]; end if Pm i=1 ti = 0then amp[s, t]←1; returnamp[s, t]; else find the smallest indexithat makess i >0; calculates− i...

work page 2022
[4]

Cerezo, A

M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum algo- rithms, Nature Reviews Physics3, 625 (2021)

2021
[5]

P´ erez-Salinas, A

A. P´ erez-Salinas, A. Cervera-Lierta, E. Gil-Fuster, and J. I. Latorre, Data re-uploading for a universal quantum classifier, Quantum4, 226 (2020)

2020
[6]

P´ erez-Salinas, D

A. P´ erez-Salinas, D. L´ opez-N´ u˜ nez, A. Garc´ ıa-S´ aez, P. Forn-D´ ıaz, and J. I. Latorre, One qubit as a universal approximant, Phys. Rev. A104, 012405 (2021)

work page 2021
[7]

P´ erez-Salinas, M

A. P´ erez-Salinas, M. Yaghubi Rad, A. Barthe, and V. Dunjko, Universal approximation of continuous func- tions with minimal quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 043282 (2025)

work page 2025
[8]

Schuld, R

M. Schuld, R. Sweke, and J. J. Meyer, Effect of data en- coding on the expressive power of variational quantum- machine-learning models, Phys. Rev. A103, 032430 (2021)

work page 2021

Show all 29 references

[9]

Z. Yu, H. Yao, M. Li, and X. Wang, Power and limi- tations of single-qubit native quantum neural networks, inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 35, edited by S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh (Curran Associates, Inc.,
[10]

Z. Yu, Q. Chen, Y. Jiao, Y. Li, X. Lu, X. Wang, and J. Z. Yang, Non-asymptotic approximation error bounds of parameterized quantum circuits, inAdvances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems, Vol. 37, edited by A. Globerson, L. Mackey, D. Belgrave, A. Fan, U. Pa- quet, J. ...
[11]

Aaronson and A

S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, The computational com- plexity of linear optics, inProceedings of the Forty- Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Comput- ing, STOC ’11 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2011) p. 333–342

2011
[12]

A. W. Harrow and A. Montanaro, Quantum computa- tional supremacy, Nature549, 203 (2017)

2017
[13]

Zhong, H

H.-S. Zhong, H. Wang, Y.-H. Deng, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y.-H. Luo, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. Ding, Y. Hu, P. Hu, X.-Y. Yang, W.-J. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Li, X. Jiang, L. Gan, G. Yang, L. You, Z. Wang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Quantum computational advantage using photon...

2020 doi
[14]

Zhong, Y.-H

H.-S. Zhong, Y.-H. Deng, J. Qin, H. Wang, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y.-H. Luo, D. Wu, S.-Q. Gong, H. Su, Y. Hu, P. Hu, X.-Y. Yang, W.-J. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Li, X. Jiang, L. Gan, G. Yang, L. You, Z. Wang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, J. J. Renema, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Phase-programmable g...

2021
[15]

L. S. Madsen, F. Laudenbach, M. F. Askarani, F. Rortais, T. Vincent, J. F. F. Bulmer, F. M. Miatto, L. Neuhaus, L. G. Helt, M. J. Collins, A. E. Lita, T. Gerrits, S. W. Nam, V. D. Vaidya, M. Menotti, I. Dhand, Z. Vernon, N. Quesada, and J. Lavoie, Quantum computational ad- van...

2022
[16]

H.-L. Liu, H. Su, Y.-H. Deng, S.-Q. Gong, Y.-C. Gu, H.-Y. Tang, M.-H. Jia, Q. Wei, Y.-K. Song, D.-Z. Wang, M.-Y. Zheng, F.-X. Chen, L.-B. Li, S.-Y. Ren, X.-Z. Zhu, M.-H. Wang, Y.-J. Chen, Y.-F. Liu, L.-S. Song, P.-Y. Yang, J.-S. Chen, H. An, L. Zhang, L. Gan, G.-w. Yang, J.-M....

2026
[17]

B. Y. Gan, D. Leykam, and D. G. Angelakis, Fock state- enhanced expressivity of quantum machine learning mod- els, EPJ Quantum Technology9, 16 (2022)

2022
[18]

M. F. X. Mauser, S. Four, L. M. Predl, R. Albiero, F. Ceccarelli, R. Osellame, P. Petersen, B. Daki´ c, I. Agresti, and P. Walther, Experimental data re- uploading with provable enhanced learning capabilities (2025), arXiv:2507.05120 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[19]

Y. Wang, Z. Yin, T. Haug, C. Pentangelo, S. Piacentini, A. Crespi, F. Ceccarelli, R. Osellame, and P. Walther, Multiple photons enhance quantum machine learning, npj Quantum Information 10.1038/s41534-026-01302-2 (2026)

2026 doi
[20]

Y. Wang, S. Xue, Y. Wang, Y. Liu, J. Ding, W. Shi, D. Wang, Y. Liu, X. Fu, G. Huang, A. Huang, M. Deng, and J. Wu, Quantum generative adversarial learning in photonics, Opt. Lett.48, 5197 (2023)

2023
[21]

M. Reck, A. Zeilinger, H. J. Bernstein, and P. Bertani, Experimental realization of any discrete unitary opera- tor, Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 58 (1994)

1994
[22]

W. R. Clements, P. C. Humphreys, B. J. Metcalf, W. S. Kolthammer, and I. A. Walmsley, Optimal design for uni- versal multiport interferometers, Optica3, 1460 (2016)

2016
[23]

de Guise, O

H. de Guise, O. Di Matteo, and L. L. S´ anchez-Soto, Sim- ple factorization of unitary transformations, Phys. Rev. A97, 022328 (2018)

2018
[24]

Neufeld, P

A. Neufeld, P. Schmocker, and V. K. Tran, Approxima- tion rates of quantum neural networks for periodic func- tions via jackson’s inequality (2025), arXiv:2511.16149 [quant-ph]. 13

2025
[25]

J. Tang, J. Zhang, and X. Sun, Saqnn: Spectral adap- tive quantum neural network as a universal approximator (2026), arXiv:2602.09718 [quant-ph]

2026
[26]

G. G. Lorentz,Approximation of Functions(Holt, Rine- hart and Winston, New York, 1966)

1966
[27]

Riesz and B

F. Riesz and B. Sz.-Nagy,Functional Analysis, 2nd ed. (Dover Publications, New York, NY, 1990)

1990
[28]

H. J. Sussmann, High-order open mapping theorems, in Directions in Mathematical Systems Theory and Opti- mization, edited by A. Rantzer and C. I. Byrnes (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003) pp. 293–316

2003
[29]

J. M. Lee,Introduction to Smooth Manifolds, 2nd ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 218 (Springer, New York, NY, 2012)

2012

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Cerezo, G

M. Cerezo, G. Verdon, H.-Y. Huang, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning, Nature Computational Science2, 567 (2022)

2022

[2] [2]

Abbas, D

A. Abbas, D. Sutter, C. Zoufal, A. Lucchi, A. Figalli, and S. Woerner, The power of quantum neural networks, Nature Computational Science1, 403 (2021)

2021

[3] [3]

Bharti, A

K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, 12 Algorithm 1:calculation of amplitudes Input:n, m,s,t, U Output:⟨t| ˆU|s⟩ F unctionAMP(s, t): ifamp[s, t]is definedthen returnamp[s, t]; end if Pm i=1 ti = 0then amp[s, t]←1; returnamp[s, t]; else find the smallest indexithat makess i >0; calculates− i...

work page 2022

[4] [4]

Cerezo, A

M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum algo- rithms, Nature Reviews Physics3, 625 (2021)

2021

[5] [5]

P´ erez-Salinas, A

A. P´ erez-Salinas, A. Cervera-Lierta, E. Gil-Fuster, and J. I. Latorre, Data re-uploading for a universal quantum classifier, Quantum4, 226 (2020)

2020

[6] [6]

P´ erez-Salinas, D

A. P´ erez-Salinas, D. L´ opez-N´ u˜ nez, A. Garc´ ıa-S´ aez, P. Forn-D´ ıaz, and J. I. Latorre, One qubit as a universal approximant, Phys. Rev. A104, 012405 (2021)

work page 2021

[7] [7]

P´ erez-Salinas, M

A. P´ erez-Salinas, M. Yaghubi Rad, A. Barthe, and V. Dunjko, Universal approximation of continuous func- tions with minimal quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 043282 (2025)

work page 2025

[8] [8]

Schuld, R

M. Schuld, R. Sweke, and J. J. Meyer, Effect of data en- coding on the expressive power of variational quantum- machine-learning models, Phys. Rev. A103, 032430 (2021)

work page 2021