Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Cutting is All You Need: Execution of Large-Scale Quantum Neural Networks on Limited-Qubit Devices

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quantum circuit cutting lets large hybrid networks train on few-qubit hardware without losing accuracy.

desk verdict A useful engineering recipe for training cut HQNNs, but the lossy re-encoding 'cut' doesn't support the accuracy-preservation claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04844 v2 pith:65WW2S4Y submitted 2024-12-06 quant-ph cs.ET

Alberto Marchisio , Emman Sychiuco , Muhammad Kashif , Muhammad Shafique This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.ET PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords quantumcircuitcuttinghybridquantum-classicalneuralnetworksNISQmachinelearningtrainablesubcircuitsgreedyalgorithmMNIST
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 argues that quantum circuit cutting can make hybrid quantum-classical neural networks (HQNNs) trainable on NISQ devices that have far fewer qubits than the network's original circuit. The authors propose a concrete methodology: a greedy algorithm chooses where to cut the circuit, and each resulting subcircuit becomes its own differentiable layer, so gradients still flow through the whole network during backpropagation. On standard benchmarks like MNIST and handwritten Digits, they report that cut circuits using three or more qubits match or sometimes exceed the accuracy of the original circuits, with the exception of two-qubit cuts, which converge slowly and lose accuracy. The payoff is a practical path to running larger quantum machine learning models on current, qubit-limited hardware.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is replacing a wire cut with a computational-basis measurement and an angle-embedding re-encoding. This turns one big quantum node into several smaller quantum nodes, each packaged as a trainable layer so gradients flow through the classical backend between subcircuits. The greedy cutting-point algorithm sorts gates by data dependency and places cuts before gates whose dependencies lie on wires that cannot be mapped to the m-qubit device. The measurement-plus-re-encoding is the lossy step that dominates the accuracy results.

What would settle it

Train the same HQNN architecture as both an n-qubit original and an n-to-m cut for m = 2 and n >= 6, running enough epochs for learning curves to plateau; if the validation accuracy gap between cut and original never closes, the claim that cutting preserves accuracy fails in that regime. More directly, compare the quantum state on the cut wire before the cut with the state re-encoded after measurement; a fidelity well below 1 would show the information loss behind the accuracy drop.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a hybrid quantum-classical neural network whose quantum circuit uses n qubits can be cut into a set of subcircuits, each using m < n qubits, and trained end-to-end without an accuracy penalty. The authors show that the cut wires can be replaced by measurement operations followed by angle re-encoding of the measured values into the next subcircuit, and that by wrapping each subcircuit in its own trainable layer, standard backpropagation still updates every quantum parameter. Their experiments across 4- to 50-qubit circuits on the Digits and MNIST datasets show the cut model's training and validation accuracy closely tracks the uncut model whenever the target device has at least three qubits. The two-qubit cuts are the documented failure mode: subcircuits with only two qubits have low correlation and entanglement capacity, so accuracy and convergence degrade.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that replacing a cut wire with a measurement followed by angle re-encoding loses no information the network needs for training, an assumption the paper's own two-qubit results show can break down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • HQNNs with 8, 10, 20, and 50-qubit circuits can be trained on devices with as few as 3-4 qubits, with accuracy comparable to the uncut circuit.
  • Training remains differentiable across all subcircuits, so quantum parameters in every subcircuit receive gradient updates.
  • The method introduces a FLOP overhead that grows as target qubit count drops, but the qubit savings outweigh this cost for NISQ execution.
  • Cut circuits with 3+ qubits sometimes converge faster and generalize slightly better than the original circuit, as observed for 8-3 and 10-3 cuts.
  • Two-qubit cuts are the known limitation: they need many more epochs and still lag in accuracy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The measurement-plus-angle-re-encoding approximation is effectively a classical bottleneck; replacing it with quasi-probability reconstruction or other circuit-knitting estimators could close the two-qubit gap while keeping the method differentiable.
  • The faster convergence of cut circuits may be an implicit regularization effect: cutting reduces entanglement capacity, which can act as a regularizer on small datasets.
  • The greedy partitioning becomes combinatorially more expensive as the number of cuts grows, so scaling to much larger circuits will likely need a smarter search over cutting points.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a framework for quantum circuit cutting of hybrid quantum-classical neural networks (HQNNs) so that an n-qubit quantum layer can be trained and executed on an m-qubit device with m < n. The framework consists of a greedy cutting-point design algorithm (Algorithm 1, Section III-A) and an implementation in which each subcircuit becomes an independent QNode and is converted to a trainable Keras layer (Section III-B). The authors evaluate the approach on Digits and MNIST for original circuits of 4 to 10 qubits cut to 2 to 4 qubits, and additionally report 20- and 50-qubit cases. The central claim, repeated in the abstract, Section IV-H, and the conclusion, is that the cut circuits preserve the accuracy of the original circuits while supporting training of quantum parameters in all subcircuits. The empirical component reports five-run average training and validation accuracy curves for the cut and uncut circuits, FLOPs measurements, and a small ablation on embedding strategies.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would address a real NISQ-era bottleneck: executing and training quantum layers that exceed the qubit count of available hardware. The concrete engineering contribution is a multi-QNode implementation that preserves end-to-end differentiability through cut subcircuits, which is genuinely different from prior circuit-cutting work focused on expectation-value reconstruction. The authors also ship code and report repeated runs, which supports reproducibility. However, the significance as stated is conditional: because the cut operation is a lossy measurement-and-re-encoding channel rather than a standard circuit cut, the paper does not establish that the original circuit's accuracy is preserved, and the experimental evidence lacks the statistical detail needed to support the 'comparable accuracy' claim beyond selected configurations.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-B and Figure 7; Abstract; Section V] The cut operation is not a circuit cut in the standard sense and does not preserve the original circuit. Replacing a cut with a computational-basis measurement followed by angle embedding implements the channel Γ(ρ)=Σ_b ⟨b|ρ|b⟩ |ψ_b⟩⟨ψ_b⟩, which destroys all coherence across the cut and transmits only one classical bit per cut wire. Standard wire cutting, as in the cited works of Peng et al. [26] and Lowe et al. [28], reconstructs expectation values by sampling over a quasi-probability decomposition; no such reconstruction is implemented or analyzed here. Consequently the cut circuit is a different, information-limited quantum-classical model, and the abstract's claim that the method 'preserves the accuracy of the original circuits' is not supported. The authors should either implement and analyze a proper reconstruction with error bounds, or explicitly reframe the contribution as empirical training of an approximate autoencoded variant and restrict the claims accordingly.
  2. [Section IV-A and Figures 8, 9, 11] The experimental evidence for 'comparable accuracy' is not statistically supported. The paper reports only the average over five runs, with no error bars, no per-run spread, and no final numeric accuracy values for any n-m configuration. In several subplots of Figure 8 the cut and original curves overlap or cross, so it is unclear whether the claimed agreement for 3- and 4-qubit targets exceeds run-to-run noise. Conversely, the large 2-qubit gaps in Figure 8 (labels 1-3) are the expected signature of the lossy cut channel, and the longer-training results in Figure 11 also lack variance information. The authors should report mean ± standard deviation over seeds, and ideally effect sizes or confidence intervals, for every configuration discussed in Sections IV-B and IV-C.
  3. [Section III-A, Algorithm 1] The cutting-point design algorithm is underspecified, which makes the methodology difficult to reproduce and its correctness impossible to assess. The priority order in 'Sort Gates in Priority Order' is not defined, the wire selection criterion in 'Select m wires based on priority' is informal, and the dependency-unavailable case is described only by example. No invariant, termination argument, or proof that the resulting subcircuits are valid trainable HQNN components is provided. Since every downstream claim depends on this partition, the algorithm needs a precise specification of its inputs, priority metric, wire-selection rule, and a correctness statement.
  4. [Section IV-E and Figure 10] The scalability evidence is incomplete. For the 50-qubit experiment only the cut circuit is reported, with no original 50-qubit baseline to compare against, so the claim that the cut circuit 'remains effective' for larger circuits is not supported. In addition, the section title refers to '20-5 Cut & 50-5 Cut' while the text and Figure 10 describe 20-4 and 50-4 cuts and state that all cut circuits use 4 qubits; this inconsistency must be corrected before the results can be evaluated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-B, Figure 8] The in-text references to labels 8 and 9 are unclear because those labels are not associated with particular subplots in the caption; please tie each label to a named configuration.
  2. [Table II] The FLOPs measurement is not described: the authors should state how forward and backward FLOPs are profiled and whether the reported values are deterministic or averaged.
  3. [Section IV-E] The sentence 'All cut circuits are implemented using 4 qubits' conflicts with the section title's '50-5 Cut'; please harmonize the nomenclature throughout.
  4. [Figures 8 and 9] The accuracy axes have no tick labels or scale, which makes it difficult for the reader to judge the magnitude of the observed gaps; adding labeled axes and perhaps final-accuracy annotations would materially improve interpretability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the paper is an empirical evaluation with no derivation whose conclusion reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The manuscript is purely empirical: it measures training and validation accuracy for original and cut circuits and reports the measured curves, without offering a formal derivation that could be circular. The central claim that cut circuits preserve accuracy is supported by experiments on Digits and MNIST, not by an equation that is equivalent to its inputs by construction. Nothing is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed a prediction; the accuracy curves are genuine measurements of the trained models. The cut operation is described as measurement plus angle re-encoding, and one may question whether this constitutes exact circuit cutting or whether the claim of accuracy preservation is overreaching, but those are correctness and adequacy concerns, not circularity. The many self-citations concern related topics such as noise robustness, barren plateaus, and design space exploration, and they are not used as a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or as the source of the cutting methodology. No step in the paper reduces to a self-citation chain, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited under the required quote-and-reduction standard, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

No fitted model parameters are present; hyperparameters such as learning rate and batch size are standard. The load-bearing assumptions are the lossy cut approximation, the correctness of the greedy partition, and the trainability of the multi-QNode Keras stack.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption A quantum wire can be cut by measuring in the computational basis and re-encoding the outcome with angle embedding without destroying the information needed for HQNN training.
    Invoked in Section III-B; no theoretical justification given, and results for 2-qubit targets show degradation.
  • ad hoc to paper The greedy priority-based gate ordering in Algorithm 1 produces a valid circuit partition that fits the target device qubit count.
    The algorithm is heuristic and not proven to terminate with a minimal or optimal cut; the paper does not analyze its correctness.
  • domain assumption PennyLane's KerasLayer can backpropagate through a QNode, and connecting multiple KerasLayer quantum nodes preserves gradient flow across the full network.
    The paper relies on this tooling behavior but provides no verification beyond training curves.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cutting is All You Need: Execution of Large-Scale Quantum Neural Networks on Limited-Qubit Devices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/65WW2S4Y

@misc{pith2026241204844,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cutting is All You Need: Execution of Large-Scale Quantum Neural Networks on Limited-Qubit Devices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/65WW2S4Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04844}
}
read the original abstract

The rapid advancement in Quantum Computing, particularly through Noisy-Intermediate Scale Quantum (NISQ) devices, has spurred significant interest in Quantum Machine Learning (QML) applications. Despite their potential, fully-quantum algorithms remain impractical due to the limitations of current NISQ devices. Hybrid quantum-classical neural networks (HQNNs) have emerged as a viable alternative, leveraging both quantum and classical computations to enhance machine learning capabilities. However, the constrained resources of NISQ devices, particularly the limited number of qubits, pose significant challenges for executing large-scale quantum circuits. This work addresses these current challenges by proposing a novel and practical methodology for quantum circuit cutting of HQNNs, allowing large quantum circuits to be executed on limited-qubit NISQ devices. Our approach not only preserves the accuracy of the original circuits but also supports the training of quantum parameters across all subcircuits, which is crucial for the learning process in HQNNs. We propose a cutting methodology for HQNNs that employs a greedy algorithm for identifying efficient cutting points, and the implementation of trainable subcircuits, all designed to maximize the utility of NISQ devices in HQNNs. The findings suggest that quantum circuit cutting is a promising technique for advancing QML on current quantum hardware, since the cut circuit achieves comparable accuracy and much lower qubit requirements than the original circuit. The code is available at https://github.com/eBrain4Everyone/QNN-Cutting.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04844 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Variants of the HQNN for this experiment. (a) Original HQNN, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Example of HQNN architecture, where a quantum layer is interleaved [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Example of cutting a 5-qubit circuit to fit in a 3-qubit device. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Our methodology for cutting point design and implementation for HQNNs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example of the generation of subcircuits in a 6-4 cut, given the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Training and validation accuracy for the original and cut circuits with different numbers of qubits on the Digits dataset. Each plot shows the results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Training and validation accuracy for the original and cut circuits with different numbers of qubits on the MNIST dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Training and validation accuracy results for 20 qubits, 20-4 cut, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Training and validation accuracy of 4-2, 6-2, 8-2, and 10-2 cut [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison between Amplitude Embedding and Angle Embedding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. How Much Reconstruction Does Quantum Machine Learning Need? Late Fusion of Independently Trained Quantum Subcircuits

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Late fusion of independently trained quantum subcircuits matches exact circuit-cutting reconstruction accuracy on tested tasks while avoiding exponential sampling overhead, with a diagnostic indicating when reconstruc...

  2. Noisy HQNNs: A Comprehensive Analysis of Noise Robustness in Hybrid Quantum Neural Networks

    quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Simulator experiments show QuanNN is broadly more noise-robust than QCNN, while QCNN sometimes beats its own noiseless version under bit-flip, phase-flip, and phase-damping noise.

  3. FL-QDSNNs: Federated Learning with Quantum Dynamic Spiking Neural Networks

    quant-ph 2024-12 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    FL-QDSNNs reports 94% accuracy on Iris using a dynamic-threshold Pauli-X spiking mechanism in federated quantum learning, but the evaluation lacks proper baselines and reproducibility details.

  4. Next-Generation Quantum Neural Networks: Enhancing Efficiency, Security, and Privacy

    quant-ph 2025-07 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    A position paper that re-assembles the authors' prior work on QNN trainability, noise resilience, security, and privacy without adding new validation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [26]

    Simulating large quantum circuits on a small quantum computer,

    T. Peng, A. W. Harrow, M. Ozols, and X. Wu, “Simulating large quantum circuits on a small quantum computer,” PRL, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [28]

    Fast quantum circuit cutting with randomized measurements,

    A. Lowe et al. , “Fast quantum circuit cutting with randomized measurements,” Quantum, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [1]

    Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor,

    F. Arute et al. , “Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor,” Nature, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [2]

    A divide-and-conquer algorithm for quantum state preparation,

    I. F. Araujo et al. , “A divide-and-conquer algorithm for quantum state preparation,” Sci. Rep., 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [3]

    Quantum advantage in learning from experiments,

    H.-Y . Huang et al., “Quantum advantage in learning from experiments,” Science, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [4]

    Demonstration of algorithmic quantum speedup,

    B. Pokharel and D. A. Lidar, “Demonstration of algorithmic quantum speedup,” PRL, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [5]

    Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance,

    Y . Kim et al. , “Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance,” Nature, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [6]

    Evaluating the computational advantages of the variational quantum circuit model in financial fraud detection,

    A. Tudisco et al. , “Evaluating the computational advantages of the variational quantum circuit model in financial fraud detection,” IEEE Access, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 69 references
  1. [7]

    Demonstrating quantum advantage in hybrid quantum neural networks for model capacity,

    M. Kashif and S. Al-Kuwari, “Demonstrating quantum advantage in hybrid quantum neural networks for model capacity,” in ICRC, 2022

    2022

  2. [8]

    Next-generation quantum neural networks: Enhancing efficiency, security, and privacy,

    N. Innan et al., “Next-generation quantum neural networks: Enhancing efficiency, security, and privacy,” in IOLTS, 2025

    2025

  3. [9]

    Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond,

    J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond,” Quantum, 2018

    2018

  4. [10]

    Design space exploration of hybrid quantum–classical neural networks,

    M. Kashif and S. Al-Kuwari, “Design space exploration of hybrid quantum–classical neural networks,” Electronics, 2021

    2021

  5. [11]

    A survey on quantum machine learning: Current trends, challenges, opportunities, and the road ahead,

    K. Zaman et al. , “A survey on quantum machine learning: Current trends, challenges, opportunities, and the road ahead,” CoRR, vol. abs/2310.10315, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Quantum convolutional neural networks for high energy physics data analysis,

    S. Y .-C. Chen et al., “Quantum convolutional neural networks for high energy physics data analysis,” Phys. Rev. Res., 2022

    2022

  7. [13]

    Hybrid quantum-classical machine learning for sentiment analysis,

    A. K. M. Masum et al., “Hybrid quantum-classical machine learning for sentiment analysis,” in ICMLA, 2023

    2023

  8. [14]

    A quantum-classical collaborative training architecture based on quantum state fidelity,

    R. L’Abbate et al. , “A quantum-classical collaborative training architecture based on quantum state fidelity,” IEEE TQE, 2024

    2024

  9. [15]

    On the design of quantum graph convolutional neural network in the nisq-era and beyond,

    Z. Hu et al. , “On the design of quantum graph convolutional neural network in the nisq-era and beyond,” in ICCD, 2022

    2022

  10. [16]

    Investigating the effect of noise on the training performance of hybrid quantum neural networks,

    M. Kashif et al. , “Investigating the effect of noise on the training performance of hybrid quantum neural networks,” CoRR, vol. abs/2402.08523, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Hqnet: Harnessing quantum noise for effective training of quantum neural networks in nisq era,

    M. Kashif and M. Shafique, “Hqnet: Harnessing quantum noise for effective training of quantum neural networks in nisq era,” arXiv:2402.08475, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Nrqnn: The role of observable selection in noise-resilient quantum neural networks,

    M. Kashif and M. Shafique, “Nrqnn: The role of observable selection in noise-resilient quantum neural networks,” in World Congress in Computer Science, Computer Engineering & Applied Computing , 2024

    2024

  13. [19]

    Noisy hqnns: A comprehensive analysis of noise robustness in hybrid quantum neural networks,

    T. Ahmed, A. Marchisio, M. Kashif, and M. Shafique, “Noisy hqnns: A comprehensive analysis of noise robustness in hybrid quantum neural networks,” in IJCNN, 2025

    2025

  14. [20]

    Quantum neural networks: A comparative analysis and noise robustness evaluation,

    T. Ahmed et al., “Quantum neural networks: A comparative analysis and noise robustness evaluation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14412 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes,

    J. R. McClean et al. , “Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes,” CoRR, vol. abs/1803.11173, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  16. [22]

    The impact of cost function globality and locality in hybrid quantum neural networks on nisq devices,

    M. Kashif and S. Al-Kuwari, “The impact of cost function globality and locality in hybrid quantum neural networks on nisq devices,” Machine Learning: Science and Technology , 2023

    2023

  17. [23]

    Resqnets: a residual approach for mitigating barren plateaus in quantum neural networks,

    M. Kashif and S. Al-Kuwari, “Resqnets: a residual approach for mitigating barren plateaus in quantum neural networks,” EPJ Quantum Technology, 2024

    2024

  18. [24]

    Alleviating barren plateaus in parameterized quantum machine learning circuits: Investigating advanced parameter initialization strategies,

    M. Kashif et al., “Alleviating barren plateaus in parameterized quantum machine learning circuits: Investigating advanced parameter initialization strategies,” in DATE, 2024

    2024

  19. [25]

    Deep quanvolutional neural networks with enhanced trainability and gradient propagation,

    M. Kashif and M. Shafique, “Deep quanvolutional neural networks with enhanced trainability and gradient propagation,” Scientific Reports, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 21764, 2025

    2025

  20. [27]

    Cutqc: using small quantum computers for large quantum circuit evaluations,

    W. Tang et al. , “Cutqc: using small quantum computers for large quantum circuit evaluations,” in ASPLOS, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Circuit knitting with classical communication,

    C. Piveteau and D. Sutter, “Circuit knitting with classical communication,” IEEE TIT, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Overhead-constrained circuit knitting for variational quantum dynamics,

    G. Gentinetta, F. Metz, and G. Carleo, “Overhead-constrained circuit knitting for variational quantum dynamics,” Quantum, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Investigating the effect of circuit cutting in qaoa for the maxcut problem on nisq devices,

    M. Bechtold et al. , “Investigating the effect of circuit cutting in qaoa for the maxcut problem on nisq devices,” QST, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Optimal partitioning of quantum circuits using gate cuts and wire cuts,

    S. Brandhofer, I. Polian, and K. Krsulich, “Optimal partitioning of quantum circuits using gate cuts and wire cuts,” IEEE TQE, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Cutting circuits with multiple two-qubit unitaries,

    L. Schmitt, C. Piveteau, and D. Sutter, “Cutting circuits with multiple two-qubit unitaries,” CoRR, vol. abs/2312.11638, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Optimal quantum circuit cuts with application to clustered hamiltonian simulation,

    A. W. Harrow and A. Lowe, “Optimal quantum circuit cuts with application to clustered hamiltonian simulation,” CoRR, vol. abs/2403.01018, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Cutting a wire with non-maximally entangled states,

    M. Bechtold, J. Barzen, F. Leymann, and A. Mandl, “Cutting a wire with non-maximally entangled states,” in IPDPSW, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Quantum circuit cutting for classical shadows,

    D. T. S. Chen, Z. H. Saleem, and M. A. Perlin, “Quantum circuit cutting for classical shadows,” ACM TQC, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Scalable circuit cutting and scheduling in a resource-constrained and distributed quantum system,

    S. Kan et al. , “Scalable circuit cutting and scheduling in a resource-constrained and distributed quantum system,” CoRR, vol. abs/2405.04514, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Quantifying performance of wire-based quantum circuit cutting with entanglements,

    S. Sarker et al., “Quantifying performance of wire-based quantum circuit cutting with entanglements,” in IPDPSW, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    An alternative approach to optimal wire cutting without ancilla qubits,

    E. Pednault, “An alternative approach to optimal wire cutting without ancilla qubits,” CoRR, vol. abs/2303.08287, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Doubly optimal parallel wire cutting without ancilla qubits,

    H. Harada, K. Wada, and N. Yamamoto, “Doubly optimal parallel wire cutting without ancilla qubits,” CoRR, vol. abs/2303.07340, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations,

    V . Bergholm et al. , “Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations,” CoRR, vol. abs/1811.04968, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Pen-Based Recognition of Handwritten Digits,

    E. Alpaydin and F. Alimoglu, “Pen-Based Recognition of Handwritten Digits,” UCI MLR, 1998

    1998

  35. [43]

    Schuld and F

    M. Schuld and F. Petruccione, Supervised Learning with Quantum Computers. Springer, 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

    Quantum data encoding: A comparative analysis of classical-to-quantum mapping techniques and their impact on machine learning accuracy,

    M. Rath and H. Date, “Quantum data encoding: A comparative analysis of classical-to-quantum mapping techniques and their impact on machine learning accuracy,” CoRR, vol. abs/2311.10375, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Hybrid quantum-classical neural networks,

    D. Arthur and P. Date, “Hybrid quantum-classical neural networks,” in QCE, 2022

    2022

  38. [46]

    Transfer learning based hybrid quantum neural network model for surface anomaly detection,

    S. Bhowmik and H. Thapliyal, “Transfer learning based hybrid quantum neural network model for surface anomaly detection,” CoRR, vol. abs/2409.00228, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Justq: Automated deployment of fair and accurate quantum neural networks,

    R. Wang, F. Baba-Yara, and F. Chen, “Justq: Automated deployment of fair and accurate quantum neural networks,” in ASP-DAC, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    H-qnn: A hybrid quantum–classical neural network for improved binary image classification,

    M. A. Hafeez, A. Munir, and H. Ullah, “H-qnn: A hybrid quantum–classical neural network for improved binary image classification,” AI, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    A comparative analysis of hybrid-quantum classical neural networks,

    K. Zaman et al. , “A comparative analysis of hybrid-quantum classical neural networks,” in World Congress in Computer Science, Computer Engineering & Applied Computing , 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    Computational advantage in hybrid quantum neural networks: Myth or reality?,

    M. Kashif, A. Marchisio, and M. Shafique, “Computational advantage in hybrid quantum neural networks: Myth or reality?,” in DAC, 2025

    2025

  43. [51]

    Quantum machine learning for image classification,

    A. Senokosov et al. , “Quantum machine learning for image classification,” Mach. Learn. Sci. Techn. , 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Studying the impact of quantum-specific hyperparameters on hybrid quantum-classical neural networks,

    K. Zaman et al. , “Studying the impact of quantum-specific hyperparameters on hybrid quantum-classical neural networks,” in World Congress in Computer Science, Computer Engineering & Applied Computing, 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    Quantum circuit learning on nisq hardware,

    N. Schillo and A. Sturm, “Quantum circuit learning on nisq hardware,” CoRR, vol. abs/2405.02069, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Designing robust quantum neural networks via optimized circuit metrics,

    W. El Maouaki et al. , “Designing robust quantum neural networks via optimized circuit metrics,” Advanced Quantum Technologies, 2025

    2025

  47. [55]

    Training deep quantum neural networks,

    K. Beer et al., “Training deep quantum neural networks,” Nat. Commun., 2020

    2020

  48. [56]

    Enhancing virtual distillation with circuit cutting for quantum error mitigation,

    P. Li et al. , “Enhancing virtual distillation with circuit cutting for quantum error mitigation,” in ICCD, 2023

    2023

  49. [57]

    Error mitigated quantum circuit cutting,

    R. Majumdar and C. J. Wood, “Error mitigated quantum circuit cutting,” CoRR, vol. abs/2211.13431, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Fragqc: An efficient quantum error reduction technique using quantum circuit fragmentation,

    S. Basu et al., “Fragqc: An efficient quantum error reduction technique using quantum circuit fragmentation,” JSS, 2024

    2024

  51. [59]

    Leveraging quantum circuit cutting for obfuscation and intellectual property protection,

    G. Typaldos, W. Tang, and J. Szefer, “Leveraging quantum circuit cutting for obfuscation and intellectual property protection,” in QCE, 2024

    2024

  52. [60]

    High dimensional quantum machine learning with small quantum computers,

    S. C. Marshall, C. Gyurik, and V . Dunjko, “High dimensional quantum machine learning with small quantum computers,” Quantum, 2023

    2023

  53. [61]

    Utilizing small quantum computers for machine learning and ground state energy approximation,

    S. Bilek, “Utilizing small quantum computers for machine learning and ground state energy approximation,” CoRR, vol. abs/2403.14406, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    An invitation to distributed quantum neural networks,

    L. Pira and C. Ferrie, “An invitation to distributed quantum neural networks,” CoRR, vol. abs/2211.07056, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Distributed quantum neural networks via partitioned features encoding,

    Y . Kawase, “Distributed quantum neural networks via partitioned features encoding,” QMI, 2024

    2024

  56. [64]

    Fedqnn: Federated learning using quantum neural networks,

    N. Innan et al. , “Fedqnn: Federated learning using quantum neural networks,” in IJCNN, 2024

    2024

  57. [65]

    The mnist database of handwritten digit images for machine learning research [best of the web],

    L. Deng, “The mnist database of handwritten digit images for machine learning research [best of the web],” IEEE SPM, 2012

    2012

  58. [66]

    On the expressibility and overfitting of quantum circuit learning,

    C.-C. Chen et al. , “On the expressibility and overfitting of quantum circuit learning,” ACM TQC, 2021

    2021

  59. [67]

    Overfitting in quantum machine learning and entangling dropout,

    M. Kobayashi, K. Nakaji, and N. Yamamoto, “Overfitting in quantum machine learning and entangling dropout,” QMI, 2022

    2022

  60. [68]

    A General Approach to Dropout in Quantum Neural Networks,

    F. Scala, A. Ceschini, M. Panella, and D. Gerace, “A General Approach to Dropout in Quantum Neural Networks,” AQT, 2023

    2023

  61. [69]

    A post-training approach for mitigating overfitting in quantum convolutional neural networks,

    A. R. Shinde, C. Jain, and A. Kalev, “A post-training approach for mitigating overfitting in quantum convolutional neural networks,” CoRR, vol. abs/2309.01829, 2024

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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