Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 81 references

Schmidt quantum compressor

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a quantum compressor built from the Schmidt decomposition of a single typical state reconstructs quantum data with no parameter optimization, matching or beating a trained variational quantum autoencoder on a…

desk verdict A clean deterministic compressor that works numerically, but the paper's justification for choosing the average state as the typical state is a heuristic, not a theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16337 v1 pith:YVNQM757 submitted 2024-12-20 quant-ph cs.ET

Israel F. Araujo , Hyeondo Oh , Nayeli A. Rodríguez-Briones , Daniel K. Park This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.ET MSC 81P68
keywords quantumcompressionSchmidtdecompositionautoencodersingularvaluestatepreparationone-classclassificationfidelityvariationalcircuits
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 claims that quantum data compression can be done deterministically, with no training step, by building the encoder and decoder from the Schmidt decomposition of a single representative state, the typical state. Compression expresses the input in the Schmidt basis of that state, keeps one subsystem as the latent space, and discards the other; when the input is exactly the typical state, reconstruction is perfect, and for inputs near it, reconstruction is close. On a six-qubit handwritten-digit dataset, this scheme reaches average reconstruction fidelities from about 0.67 to 0.84, matching or exceeding a trained variational quantum autoencoder in eight of ten digit classes while avoiding optimization pitfalls such as shot noise and barren plateaus. The paper also shows the discarded trash state can drive one-class classification, and that two deterministic reference-state optimizations improve fidelity further.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Schmidt decomposition of the typical state, obtained by reshaping the $2^n$-component amplitude vector into a matrix and performing a singular value decomposition, $M_\psi = U_\psi \Sigma_\psi V_\psi^\dagger$. The compressor $C$ is the inverted Schmidt state-preparation circuit with the $\Sigma$ operator removed: $U_\psi^{-1}$ and $V_\psi^{*\,-1}$ rotate the two subsystems into their Schmidt bases, and a sequence of CNOT gates disentangles them. The load-bearing identity is $C|\psi\rangle = \sum_i \lambda_i |i\rangle_A |0\rangle_B$, which makes reconstruction exact for the typical state, approximately correct for nearby inputs, and sets the circuit's CNOT count through the Schmidt measure $m = \lceil \log_2 k \rceil$.

What would settle it

Build a two-cluster dataset whose samples are nearly orthogonal to their average, compress a test sample with SQC using the average as the typical state, and check whether the measured reconstruction fidelity tracks the heuristic $F \approx |\langle x_i|\psi\rangle|^2$; if it does not, the average-state assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the inverse of a Schmidt state-preparation circuit, with the amplitude-encoding stage removed, acts as a faithful compressor built around a chosen typical state. Writing the typical state as $|\psi\rangle = \sum_i \lambda_i |u_i\rangle_A |v_i\rangle_B$, the paper defines the compression unitary $C = (\prod_i \mathrm{CNOT}_i)(U_\psi \otimes V_\psi^*)^{-1}$, and shows $C|\psi\rangle = \sum_i \lambda_i |i\rangle_A |0\rangle_B$, so $C^\dagger$ recovers $|\psi\rangle$ exactly. For an arbitrary input $|x_i\rangle$, the compressor approximately disentangles the trash subsystem, and the recovered state is close to $|x_i\rangle$ whenever $|x_i\rangle$ is close to $|\psi\rangle$, with fidelity heuristically $F \approx |\langle x_i|\psi\rangle|^2$. The paper supports this with numerical experiments and claims the circuit complexity scales with the Schmidt measure of the typical state rather than with the full Hilbert-space dimension, with extensions to classification and reference-state optimization.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that reconstruction fidelity for an input state is controlled by its L2 distance to the chosen typical state, and that the average of the training states is therefore the best typical state; the paper offers this as a heuristic, not a proven bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any dataset with a reliable typical state can be compressed and decompressed without optimizing a single parameter, so the known failure modes of variational training, namely shot noise, barren plateaus, and local minima, are bypassed entirely.
  • Reconstruction quality is governed by how close samples are to the typical state, so improving typical-state selection should translate directly into higher fidelity.
  • The CNOT count and depth of the compressor are set by the Schmidt measure of the typical state, so low-entanglement datasets admit shallower circuits; the paper reports 40 to 43 CNOT gates for its unitaries, comparable to the 45-CNOT ansatz of the variational autoencoder used in the comparison.
  • The trash state discarded during compression retains class-relevant information, allowing SQC to act as a deterministic feature extractor for one-class classification with performance comparable to a trained variational one-class classifier.
  • Two deterministic optimizations, preparing the reference state as the dominant eigenvector of the full trash state or of each trash qubit, improve average fidelity on all ten digit classes with costs $O(2^{n_b})$ and $O(n_b)$, respectively.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the construction suggests a general recipe: any efficiently invertible state-preparation circuit for a representative state can be converted into a fixed autoencoder by deleting the amplitude-generation stage; the Schmidt circuit is the concrete instance explored here.
  • The average-state choice is justified in the paper only for real, non-negative, normalized amplitudes; a natural testable extension, related to the paper's data-fusion outlook, is to use the principal eigenvector of the mean density matrix as the typical state, which would cover complex and sign-changing quantum data.
  • If the heuristic fidelity formula holds tightly, SQC could serve as a cheap overlap estimator with the typical state and its trash state as a data-dependent feature map; neither application is developed in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Schmidt quantum compressor (SQC), a non-variational quantum autoencoder. For a chosen "typical state" |ψ⟩, the protocol applies a unitary C obtained by inverting the Schmidt state-preparation circuit and omitting the singular-value encoding; C maps |ψ⟩ to |λ⟩_A |0⟩_B, so C† reconstructs |ψ⟩ exactly. The paper proposes the arithmetic mean of the training states as the typical state, claiming that minimizing the L2 distance to the dataset maximizes reconstruction fidelity. Numerical experiments on a 6-qubit handwritten-digit dataset compare SQC with a variational QAE in fidelity and one-class classification, and two modified versions with classically transmitted trash-state information are presented.

Significance. The exact action of C on the typical state (Eqs. 7-8) and the CNOT-count bound in Theorem 1 are correct and useful, and the protocol is genuinely deterministic, avoiding variational optimization. The availability of code is a strength. However, the broader claim that high-fidelity reconstruction extends to states near the typical state is not established, and the L2-based justification for the average state is demonstrably not generally valid. If a rigorous error bound or a properly stated heuristic were supplied, the method could be a practical alternative to QAEs, especially for small problems.

major comments (2)
  1. [III D (Eqs. 16-21)] The paper's theoretical justification for choosing the average state as the typical state is invalid. The claim that minimizing the L2 distance between |x_i⟩ and |ψ⟩ maximizes the fidelity of Eq. (16) is contradicted by the protocol itself: for a two-qubit system with typical state |ψ⟩=(|00⟩+|11⟩)/√2, the compressor is C=CNOT, and the input |00⟩ has |⟨00|ψ⟩|²=1/2 yet is reconstructed exactly, with F=1. More generally, any state in the span of the Schmidt basis pairs {|u_i v_i⟩} is recovered exactly regardless of its overlap with |ψ⟩. Reconstruction fidelity therefore depends on the projection of the input onto the Schmidt-diagonal subspace, not on L2 proximity to |ψ⟩, and Eq. (21) is not shown to be the fidelity-optimal typical state.
  2. [III D] No error bound is given for the reconstruction of non-typical states. The derivation leading to the approximate fidelity in Section III D assumes |x_i⟩ ≈ |ψ⟩ at the level of states but provides no quantitative statement of how F degrades with distance or with the spectrum of the compressed trash state. The counterexample above shows that the simple heuristic F ≈ |⟨x_i|ψ⟩|² cannot be correct in general, so a rigorous bound or a clearly labeled heuristic with numerical validation is needed for the central claim of high-fidelity reconstruction beyond the typical state.
minor comments (5)
  1. [IV A (Table I)] The statement that SQC "outperformed" QAE in 8 of 10 labels is not supported by the reported standard deviations, which overlap for every label; on a 20-sample test set these fidelities are statistically indistinguishable. Please soften the claim or add a significance test.
  2. [III D] The minimization in Eqs. (17)-(21) is only valid for real-valued state vectors; the paper should state explicitly that this restricts the typical-state selection to real amplitude encodings and that the generalization to complex states is not addressed.
  3. [V] The optimizations in Section V require per-input quantum state tomography of the trash register and classical transmission of the reconstructed eigenvector to the receiver; this changes the setting from a fixed quantum circuit to an adaptive scheme with classical side information, and the additional measurement and communication costs should be acknowledged in the complexity discussion.
  4. [II] The fidelity-loss expression l(r, |ψ⟩) := (1 − ∥⟨ψ|ψ(r)⟩∥²) = Σ_{i=r+1}^k ∥λ_i∥² contains misplaced norm signs; it should read 1 − |⟨ψ|ψ^{(r)}⟩|² = Σ_{i=r+1}^k |λ_i|².
  5. [Abstract] The abstract claims that SQC "substantially reduces the complexity and computational overhead" compared to variational QAEs, but the SVD preprocessing scales as O(2^{3n/2}) and the circuit has O(2^n) CNOTs when m=nb; please qualify this claim by distinguishing preprocessing cost from circuit cost.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SQC test fidelities are held-out predictions; the average-state optimality argument is unproven but not a reduction to inputs.

full rationale

Tracing the derivation chain, I find no step in which the paper's central claim reduces to its own input. The compressor C is constructed from the Schmidt decomposition of a chosen typical state |psi> (Eqs. 6-10), and the exact recovery of that typical state (Eqs. 7-8) is a design identity, not a fitted prediction. The numerical headline of the paper, Table I, is measured on 20 held-out test samples per digit class after the typical state is formed from 160 training samples, so the reported fidelities are genuine generalization results rather than refits of the target quantity. The average-state rule in Section III D (Eqs. 17-21) is obtained by minimizing L2 distance to the training set, not by enforcing the test fidelities in Table I. The paper's own caveat in Section VI, that the average is 'limited to real, non-negative, sample states', confirms this is a stated limitation rather than a tautology. The quoted claim in Section III D that minimizing L2 distance maximizes fidelity is heuristic and, as the skeptic notes, not established for states lying outside the Schmidt-diagonal subspace; however, an unproven or even incorrect optimality argument is a correctness risk, not circularity, because the average state remains the chosen reference independently of whether that argument holds. Section V's optimizations use tomography of the trash state of the input itself to set the reference state, so their fidelity improvements are not independent prediction claims, but the paper explicitly frames them as classical-data-transmission protocols. Self-citations to Refs. [13], [71], and [81] involve overlapping authors, but they are used for prior circuit-decomposition results, a previously published classifier architecture, and code availability, not as the sole evidence for the paper's new numerical results. The score of 2 reflects the presence of minor self-citation and a loose theoretical justification, without load-bearing circularity in the main claim.

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

The protocol introduces no free fitted parameters, because the compressor is constructed directly from the average state of the dataset. The main ledger entries are the untested heuristic linking L2 distance to fidelity, the real/non-negative data assumption needed for the average-state optimality, and the standard gate-decomposition costs used in the complexity analysis. No new physical entities or mediators are postulated.

assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper Reconstruction fidelity for an input state is well approximated by its squared overlap with the typical state.
    Section III D uses the heuristic F ≈ |⟨x_i|ψ⟩|^2 to justify the average state as the optimal typical state. No error bound or formal derivation is given, yet this drives the entire typical-state approach.
  • domain assumption The dataset states are real, non-negative, and normalized, so the average state has nonzero norm and minimizes the total L2 distance.
    The derivative with respect to |ψ⟩ in Eq. (20) is taken assuming real vectors. The authors explicitly note that the method is limited to real, non-negative data and defer complex data to future work.
  • standard math Known gate counts for unitary and isometry decompositions (Refs. [53,55]) are valid.
    The CNOT-count Theorem 1 relies on the published decomposition costs from Iten et al. and Shende et al., which are accepted background results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Schmidt quantum compressor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YVNQM757

@misc{pith2026241216337,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Schmidt quantum compressor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YVNQM757}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16337}
}
read the original abstract

This work introduces the Schmidt quantum compressor, an innovative approach to quantum data compression that leverages the principles of Schmidt decomposition to encode quantum information efficiently. In contrast to traditional variational quantum autoencoders, which depend on stochastic optimization and face challenges such as shot noise, barren plateaus, and non-convex optimization landscapes, our deterministic method substantially reduces the complexity and computational overhead of quantum data compression. We evaluate the performance of the compressor through numerical experiments, demonstrating its ability to achieve high fidelity in quantum state reconstruction compared to variational quantum algorithms. Furthermore, we demonstrate the practical utility of the Schmidt quantum compressor in one-class classification tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16337 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schmidt Quantum State Preparation: quantum cir [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schmidt Quantum Compression (SQC) protocol: quantum circuit overview. The operators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Operational dynamics of the complete circuit on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The diagram illustrates the ansatz used as the compression unitary within QAE experiments, designed to ensure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The figure displays the circuit employed to train the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Schmidt Quantum Compression Protocol with Op [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computa- tion and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edi- tion (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Information (Cam- bridge University Press, 2018)

    J. Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Information (Cam- bridge University Press, 2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    Pivoluska and M

    M. Pivoluska and M. Plesch, Implementation of quan- tum compression on ibm quantum computers, Scientific Reports 12, 5841 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    L. A. Rozema, D. H. Mahler, A. Hayat, P. S. Turner, and A. M. Steinberg, Quantum data compression of a qubit ensemble, Physical review letters 113, 160504 (2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    C.-R. Fan, B. Lu, X.-T. Feng, W.-C. Gao, and C. Wang, Efficient multi-qubit quantum data compression, Quan- tum Engineering 3, e67 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Plesch and V

    M. Plesch and V. Buˇ zek, Efficient compression of quan- tum information, Physical Review A 81, 032317 (2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Caleffi, M

    M. Caleffi, M. Amoretti, D. Ferrari, J. Illiano, A. Man- zalini, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, Distributed quantum com- puting: A survey, Computer Networks 254, 110672 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    Loke, From distributed quantum computing to quantum internet computing: an introduction (Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2023)

    S. Loke, From distributed quantum computing to quantum internet computing: an introduction (Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    M¨ ott¨ onen, J

    M. M¨ ott¨ onen, J. J. Vartiainen, V. Bergholm, and M. M. Salomaa, Transformation of quantum states using uni- formly controlled rotations, Quantum Info. Comput. 5, 467 (2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    Plesch and i

    M. Plesch and i. c. v. Brukner, Quantum-state prepara- tion with universal gate decompositions, Phys. Rev. A 83, 032302 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    I. F. Araujo, D. K. Park, F. Petruccione, and A. J. da Silva, A divide-and-conquer algorithm for quantum state preparation, Scientific reports 11, 6329 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    I. F. Araujo, D. K. Park, T. B. Ludermir, W. R. Oliveira, F. Petruccione, and A. J. Da Silva, Configurable sub- linear circuits for quantum state preparation, Quantum Information Processing 22, 123 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    I. F. Araujo, C. Blank, I. C. S. Ara´ ujo, and A. J. da Silva, Low-rank quantum state preparation, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and 12 Systems 43, 161 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Romero, J

    J. Romero, J. P. Olson, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quantum autoencoders for efficient compression of quantum data, Quantum Science and Technology 2, 045001 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Cao and X

    C. Cao and X. Wang, Noise-assisted quantum autoen- coder, Phys. Rev. Appl. 15, 054012 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Huang, H

    C.-J. Huang, H. Ma, Q. Yin, J.-F. Tang, D. Dong, C. Chen, G.-Y. Xiang, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Realiza- tion of a quantum autoencoder for lossless compression of quantum data, Physical Review A 102, 032412 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Ma, C.-J

    H. Ma, C.-J. Huang, C. Chen, D. Dong, Y. Wang, R.-B. Wu, and G.-Y. Xiang, On compression rate of quantum autoencoders: Control design, numerical and experimen- tal realization, Automatica 147, 110659 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Lamata, U

    L. Lamata, U. Alvarez-Rodriguez, J. D. Mart ´ ın- Guerrero, M. Sanz, and E. Solano, Quantum autoen- coders via quantum adders with genetic algorithms, Quantum Science and Technology 4, 014007 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Bab- bush, and H. Neven, Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes, Nature Communications 9, 4812 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Sone, T. Volkoff, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shal- low parametrized quantum circuits, Nature Communica- tions 12, 1791 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Larocca, S

    M. Larocca, S. Thanasilp, S. Wang, K. Sharma, J. Bia- monte, P. J. Coles, L. Cincio, J. R. McClean, Z. Holmes, and M. Cerezo, A review of barren plateaus in variational quantum computing, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00781 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Bittel and M

    L. Bittel and M. Kliesch, Training variational quantum algorithms is np-hard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 120502 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    E. R. Anschuetz and B. T. Kiani, Quantum variational algorithms are swamped with traps, Nature Communica- tions 13, 7760 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    T. Hur, I. F. Araujo, and D. K. Park, Neural quantum embedding: Pushing the limits of quantum supervised learning, Phys. Rev. A 110, 022411 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Lourens, I

    M. Lourens, I. Sinayskiy, D. K. Park, C. Blank, and F. Petruccione, Hierarchical quantum circuit represen- tations for neural architecture search, npj Quantum In- formation 9, 79 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Schuld, R

    M. Schuld, R. Sweke, and J. J. Meyer, Effect of data encoding on the expressive power of variational quantum- machine-learning models, Physical Review A103, 032430 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Thanasilp, S

    S. Thanasilp, S. Wang, M. Cerezo, and Z. Holmes, Ex- ponential concentration and untrainability in quantum kernel methods, arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.11060 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Cerezo, G

    M. Cerezo, G. Verdon, H.-Y. Huang, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning, Nature Computational Science , 1 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Holmes, K

    Z. Holmes, K. Sharma, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles, Con- necting Ansatz Expressibility to Gradient Magnitudes and Barren Plateaus, PRX Quantum 3, 010313 (2022), 2101.02138

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Rebentrost, A

    P. Rebentrost, A. Steffens, I. Marvian, and S. Lloyd, Quantum singular-value decomposition of nonsparse low- rank matrices, Physical Review A 97 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Wossnig, Z

    L. Wossnig, Z. Zhao, and A. Prakash, Quantum linear system algorithm for dense matrices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 050502 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    A. M. Childs, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, Quantum algorithm for systems of linear equations with exponen- tially improved dependence on precision, SIAM Journal on Computing 46, 1920–1950 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Lloyd, M

    S. Lloyd, M. Mohseni, and P. Rebentrost, Quantum prin- cipal component analysis, Nature Physics 10, 631 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    Blank, D

    C. Blank, D. K. Park, J.-K. K. Rhee, and F. Petruc- cione, Quantum classifier with tailored quantum kernel, npj Quantum Information 6, 1 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Levine, O

    Y. Levine, O. Sharir, N. Cohen, and A. Shashua, Quantum Entanglement in Deep Learning Architectures, Physical Review Letters 122, 065301 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Benedetti, E

    M. Benedetti, E. Lloyd, S. Sack, and M. Fiorentini, Pa- rameterized quantum circuits as machine learning mod- els, Quantum Science and Technology (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Schuld and F

    M. Schuld and F. Petruccione, Supervised Learning with Quantum Computers , Quantum Science and Technology (Springer International Publishing, 2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Schuld, M

    M. Schuld, M. Fingerhuth, and F. Petruccione, Imple- menting a distance-based classifier with a quantum in- terference circuit, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 119, 60002 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Stoudenmire and D

    E. Stoudenmire and D. J. Schwab, Supervised learn- ing with tensor networks, in Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems , Vol. 29, edited by D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, U. Luxburg, I. Guyon, and R. Garnett (Curran Associates, Inc., Centre Convencions Interna- cional Barce...

    2016

  32. [40]

    Lloyd, M

    S. Lloyd, M. Mohseni, and P. Rebentrost, Quantum algo- rithms for supervised and unsupervised machine learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:1307.0411 (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  33. [41]

    D. K. Park, F. Petruccione, and J.-K. K. Rhee, Circuit- based quantum random access memory for classical data, Scientific Reports 9, 3949 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum ran- dom access memory, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 160501 (2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    C. A. Trugenberger, Quantum Pattern Recognition, Quantum Information Processing 1, 471 (2002)

    2002

  36. [44]

    Ventura and T

    D. Ventura and T. Martinez, Quantum associative mem- ory, Information Sciences 124, 273 (2000)

    2000

  37. [45]

    C. A. Trugenberger, Probabilistic quantum memories, Physical Review Letters 87 (2001)

    2001

  38. [46]

    M¨ ott¨ onen, J

    M. M¨ ott¨ onen, J. J. Vartiainen, V. Bergholm, and M. M. Salomaa, Quantum circuits for general multiqubit gates, Physical review letters 93, 130502 (2004)

    2004

  39. [47]

    Bergholm, J

    V. Bergholm, J. J. Vartiainen, M. M¨ ott¨ onen, and M. M. Salomaa, Quantum circuits with uniformly controlled one-qubit gates, Phys. Rev. A 71, 052330 (2005)

    2005

  40. [48]

    T. M. L. Veras, I. C. S. De Araujo, K. D. Park, and A. J. da Silva, Circuit-based quantum random access memory for classical data with continuous amplitudes, IEEE Transactions on Computers , 1 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Schuld, A

    M. Schuld, A. Bocharov, K. M. Svore, and N. Wiebe, Circuit-centric quantum classifiers, Phys. Rev. A 101, 032308 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    LaRose and B

    R. LaRose and B. Coyle, Robust data encodings for quan- tum classifiers, Phys. Rev. A 102, 032420 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Grant, M

    E. Grant, M. Benedetti, S. Cao, A. Hallam, J. Lock- hart, V. Stojevic, A. G. Green, and S. Severini, Hierar- chical quantum classifiers, npj Quantum Information 4, 65 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    C. Cade, L. Mineh, A. Montanaro, and S. Stanisic, Strategies for solving the fermi-hubbard model on near- term quantum computers, Phys. Rev. B 102, 235122 13 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    R. Iten, R. Colbeck, I. Kukuljan, J. Home, and M. Chri- standl, Quantum circuits for isometries, Physical Review A 93, 032318 (2016)

    2016

  46. [54]

    Malvetti, R

    E. Malvetti, R. Iten, and R. Colbeck, Quantum Circuits for Sparse Isometries, Quantum 5, 412 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    V. V. Shende, S. S. Bullock, and I. L. Markov, Syn- thesis of quantum-logic circuits, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Sys- tems 25, 1000 (2006)

    2006

  48. [56]

    E. G. KOGBETLIANTZ, Solution of linear equations by diagonalization of coefficients matrix, Quarterly of Ap- plied Mathematics 13, 123 (1955)

    1955

  49. [57]

    G. E. Forsythe and P. Henrici, The cyclic jacobi method for computing the principal values of a complex matrix, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 94, 1 (1960)

    1960

  50. [58]

    Halko, P

    N. Halko, P. G. Martinsson, and J. A. Tropp, Finding structure with randomness: Probabilistic algorithms for constructing approximate matrix decompositions, SIAM Review 53, 217 (2011)

    2011

  51. [59]

    Ahmadi-Asl, S

    S. Ahmadi-Asl, S. Abukhovich, M. G. Asante-Mensah, A. Cichocki, A. H. Phan, T. Tanaka, and I. Oseledets, Randomized algorithms for computation of tucker de- composition and higher order svd (hosvd), IEEE Access 9, 28684 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measure- ments, Nature Physics 16, 1050 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    Y. Zhou, E. M. Stoudenmire, and X. Waintal, What lim- its the simulation of quantum computers?, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041038 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    Bowles, S

    J. Bowles, S. Ahmed, and M. Schuld, Better than clas- sical? the subtle art of benchmarking quantum machine learning models (2024), arXiv:2403.07059 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Dua and C

    D. Dua and C. Graff, UCI machine learning repository (2017)

    2017

  56. [64]

    Alpaydin and C

    E. Alpaydin and C. Kaynak, Cascading classifiers, Ky- bernetika 34, 369 (1998)

    1998

  57. [65]

    Kandala, A

    A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware- efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets, Nature 549, 242 (2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    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 Physics 3, 625 (2021)

    2021

  59. [67]

    Barenco, A

    A. Barenco, A. Berthiaume, D. Deutsch, A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, and C. Macchiavello, Stabilisation of quantum computations by symmetrisation (1996), arXiv:quant- ph/9604028 [quant-ph]

    1996

  60. [68]

    Qiskit contributors, Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing (2023)

    2023

  61. [69]

    M. J. D. Powell, A view of algorithms for optimization without derivatives 1 (2007)

    2007

  62. [70]

    Bravo-Prieto, Quantum autoencoders with enhanced data encoding, Machine Learning: Science and Technol- ogy 2, 035028 (2021)

    C. Bravo-Prieto, Quantum autoencoders with enhanced data encoding, Machine Learning: Science and Technol- ogy 2, 035028 (2021)

    2021

  63. [71]

    G. Park, J. Huh, and D. K. Park, Variational quantum one-class classifier, Machine Learning: Science and Tech- nology 4, 015006 (2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

    Oh and D

    H. Oh and D. K. Park, Quantum support vector data description for anomaly detection, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06375 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Matthews, Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of t4 phage lysozyme, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Protein Structure 405, 442 (1975)

    B. Matthews, Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of t4 phage lysozyme, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Protein Structure 405, 442 (1975)

    1975

  66. [74]

    G. U. Yule, On the methods of measuring association between two attributes, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 75, 579 (1912)

    1912

  67. [75]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, Adam: A method for stochastic optimization (2017), arXiv:1412.6980 [cs.LG]

    2017 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Efthymiou, S

    S. Efthymiou, S. Ramos-Calderer, C. Bravo-Prieto, A. P´ erez-Salinas, D. Garc ´ ıa-Mart ´ ın, A. Garcia-Saez, J. I. Latorre, and S. Carrazza, Qibo: a framework for quan- tum simulation with hardware acceleration, Quantum Science and Technology 7, 015018 (2021)

    2021

  69. [77]

    H. Ma, G. J. Mooney, I. R. Petersen, L. C. L. Hollen- berg, and D. Dong, Quantum autoencoders using mixed reference states (2023), arXiv:2309.15582 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Ezzell, E

    N. Ezzell, E. M. Ball, A. U. Siddiqui, M. M. Wilde, A. T. Sornborger, P. J. Coles, and Z. Holmes, Quantum mixed state compiling, Quantum Science and Technology 8, 035001 (2023)

    2023

  71. [79]

    Lahat, T

    D. Lahat, T. Adali, and C. Jutten, Multimodal data fu- sion: An overview of methods, challenges, and prospects, Proceedings of the IEEE 103, 1449 (2015)

    2015

  72. [80]

    Kempf, P

    I. Kempf, P. J. Goulart, and S. R. Duncan, A higher- order generalized singular value decomposition for rank- deficient matrices, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 44, 1047 (2023)

    2023

  73. [81]

    I. F. Araujo and D. K. Park, Qdna quantum computing library (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.