pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.07013 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 🪐 quant-ph · cs.LG

QNAS: A Neural Architecture Search Framework for Accurate and Efficient Quantum Neural Networks

Kooshan Maleki , Alberto Marchisio , Muhammad Shafique This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cs.LG
keywords quantum neural networksneural architecture searchmulti-objective optimizationNISQ hardwarecircuit cuttinghybrid quantum-classical modelsPareto optimizationSuperCircuit
0
0 comments X

The pith

QNAS finds compact accurate quantum neural networks by jointly optimizing error, runtime cost, and circuit cutting overhead.

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

The paper introduces QNAS, a framework that automates design of hybrid quantum-classical neural networks for NISQ hardware. It trains one large SuperCircuit with shared parameters and applies NSGA-II to search among possible sub-architectures. The search simultaneously minimizes validation error, a wall-clock runtime proxy, and the number of subcircuits needed to respect a qubit limit. This joint optimization produces Pareto fronts that show explicit trade-offs and surfaces concrete design patterns, such as preferred embedding types for image versus tabular data. The result matters because manual ansatz design struggles to balance expressivity with the practical costs of limited qubits and circuit cutting.

Core claim

QNAS trains a shared parameter SuperCircuit and uses NSGA-II to optimize three objectives jointly: validation error, a runtime cost proxy measuring wall clock evaluation time, and the estimated number of subcircuits under a target qubit budget. It evaluates candidate HQNNs under a few epochs of training and discovers clear Pareto fronts that reveal tradeoffs between accuracy, efficiency, and cutting overhead. Across MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, and Iris benchmarks, embedding type and CNOT mode selection significantly impact both accuracy and efficiency, with angle-y embedding and sparse entangling patterns outperforming other configurations on image datasets, and amplitude embedding excelling on a

What carries the argument

The SuperCircuit with shared parameters, from which candidate architectures are sampled and scored by NSGA-II across accuracy, runtime proxy, and subcircuit count to account for cutting overhead.

If this is right

  • On MNIST the best found architecture reaches 97.16 percent test accuracy with an 8-qubit 2-layer circuit.
  • On Fashion-MNIST the best architecture reaches 87.38 percent accuracy with a 5-qubit 2-layer circuit.
  • On Iris the best architecture reaches 100 percent validation accuracy with a 4-qubit 2-layer circuit.
  • Angle-y embedding combined with sparse CNOT patterns improves both accuracy and efficiency on image datasets.
  • Amplitude embedding outperforms other choices on tabular data such as Iris.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The design rules surfaced by the search, such as preferred embeddings, could be used directly by practitioners to construct circuits manually without rerunning the full optimizer.
  • The same SuperCircuit-plus-NSGA-II approach could be applied to other quantum machine learning tasks like regression or generative modeling.
  • Replacing the simple runtime proxy with a more detailed hardware noise model would allow the search to produce even more realistic architectures for specific devices.
  • Users facing different qubit budgets can select different points along the Pareto front rather than a single fixed architecture.

Load-bearing premise

That performance estimates from only a few epochs of training on candidate architectures are reliable enough to rank them correctly, and that the runtime proxy and subcircuit count accurately predict costs on real NISQ devices.

What would settle it

Full training of a top architecture discovered by QNAS on a quantum simulator or hardware, followed by measurement of its final test accuracy and wall-clock runtime, showing large deviations from the few-epoch estimates and proxies used during search.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07013 by Alberto Marchisio, Kooshan Maleki, Muhammad Shafique.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of QNAS Framework. community, we release the code in a public repository at https: //github.com/Kooshano/QNAS. Scope and implications. QNAS does not claim to outperform the accuracy of strong classical baselines; instead, it provides a practical methodology for discovering deployable QNN ar￾chitectures under realistic constraints. By explicitly optimizing for cutting overhead alongside accuracy an… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Hybrid quantum classical neural network used in QNAS. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: NAS pipeline. Data and objectives feed a NAS engine that evolves [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: QNAS search space parameters and ranges. Each candidate architecture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Effect of entanglement range r on CNOT connectivity for a 6 qubit circuit. r = 1: nearest neighbor (qi → qi+1). r = 2: skip one (qi → qi+2). r = 3: opposite pairs (qi → qi+3). r = 4: skip three (qi → qi+4). Larger ranges enable longer distance correlations but may increase hardware routing overhead. q3 R R q2 R R q1 R R q0 R R (a) All q3 R R q2 R R q1 R R q0 R R (b) Even q3 R R q2 R R q1 R R q0 R R (c) Odd… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: CNOT mode patterns for a 4 qubit circuit with entanglement range [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Correlation between checkpoint accuracy and final (epoch 10) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Training dynamics during 12 epoch retraining on full MNIST [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Number of subcircuits (F3) versus qubit count for Qtarget=4. Since cutting overhead scales as O(4k) per cut, minimizing F3 is critical. TABLE IV: Transpilation analysis for Pareto optimal architectures. Circuits transpiled to fake_melbourne (15q) with optimization level 3. Sparse CNOT modes yield minimal routing overhead. Config Depth CNOTs Gates CNOT Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Mode 8q-2d (Best Acc.) 10 1… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Transpiled 8 qubit angle-y circuit (CNOT mode “none-odd”) on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Circuit cutting for the best 8q-2d angle-y architecture ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Designing quantum neural networks (QNNs) that are both accurate and deployable on NISQ hardware is challenging. Handcrafted ansatze must balance expressivity, trainability, and resource use, while limited qubits often necessitate circuit cutting. Existing quantum architecture search methods primarily optimize accuracy while only heuristically controlling quantum and mostly ignore the exponential overhead of circuit cutting. We introduce QNAS, a neural architecture search framework that unifies hardware aware evaluation, multi objective optimization, and cutting overhead awareness for hybrid quantum classical neural networks (HQNNs). QNAS trains a shared parameter SuperCircuit and uses NSGA-II to optimize three objectives jointly: (i) validation error, (ii) a runtime cost proxy measuring wall clock evaluation time, and (iii) the estimated number of subcircuits under a target qubit budget. QNAS evaluates candidate HQNNs under a few epochs of training and discovers clear Pareto fronts that reveal tradeoffs between accuracy, efficiency, and cutting overhead. Across MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, and Iris benchmarks, we observe that embedding type and CNOT mode selection significantly impact both accuracy and efficiency, with angle-y embedding and sparse entangling patterns outperforming other configurations on image datasets, and amplitude embedding excelling on tabular data (Iris). On MNIST, the best architecture achieves 97.16% test accuracy with a compact 8 qubit, 2 layer circuit; on the more challenging Fashion-MNIST, 87.38% with a 5 qubit, 2 layer circuit; and on Iris, 100% validation accuracy with a 4 qubit, 2 layer circuit. QNAS surfaces these design insights automatically during search, guiding practitioners toward architectures that balance accuracy, resource efficiency, and practical deployability on current hardware.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces QNAS, a neural architecture search framework for hybrid quantum-classical neural networks. It trains a shared-parameter SuperCircuit once and applies NSGA-II to jointly optimize three objectives: validation error, a wall-clock runtime cost proxy, and the estimated number of subcircuits required under a target qubit budget to account for circuit cutting. The framework is evaluated on MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, and Iris, reporting test accuracies of 97.16%, 87.38%, and 100% respectively using compact circuits (e.g., 8-qubit 2-layer on MNIST), while automatically surfacing insights on embedding types and entangling patterns.

Significance. If the evaluation protocol holds, QNAS would provide a practical advance in automating the design of deployable QNNs by incorporating hardware constraints and cutting overhead directly into the search, moving beyond accuracy-only optimization. The multi-objective Pareto-front discovery and the reported design insights on angle-y embeddings and sparse CNOT patterns for image data could guide future hardware-efficient quantum ML work.

major comments (3)
  1. [Experimental Evaluation] Experimental Protocol: The reported benchmark accuracies and design insights lack details on chosen baselines, the number of independent runs or statistical significance tests, and the full hyperparameter protocol for SuperCircuit training and NSGA-II. This makes it difficult to verify whether the claimed performance and insights are robust.
  2. [Architecture Scoring] Candidate Evaluation: Architectures are scored after only a few epochs of training on the shared SuperCircuit before feeding validation error into NSGA-II. Given known QNN challenges such as barren plateaus, initialization sensitivity, and slow convergence, short runs may produce unstable rankings; without an ablation correlating few-epoch scores to fully converged accuracies, the Pareto fronts and final accuracies rest on an unverified proxy.
  3. [Objective Functions] Objective Definitions: The runtime cost proxy (wall-clock time) and subcircuit count estimation are load-bearing for the hardware-awareness claim, yet their precise formulations, assumptions about compilation, and validation against real NISQ metrics are not fully specified or ablated in the methods.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Results] Include explicit visualizations of the Pareto fronts for all three datasets to illustrate the accuracy-efficiency-cutting trade-offs.
  2. [Method] Formalize the three objective functions with equations and clarify the SuperCircuit parameter-sharing mechanism for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will incorporate into the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Experimental Evaluation] Experimental Protocol: The reported benchmark accuracies and design insights lack details on chosen baselines, the number of independent runs or statistical significance tests, and the full hyperparameter protocol for SuperCircuit training and NSGA-II. This makes it difficult to verify whether the claimed performance and insights are robust.

    Authors: We agree that these experimental details are necessary to allow independent verification of the reported accuracies and design insights. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated experimental protocol subsection that specifies the baselines employed, the number of independent runs, any statistical significance testing performed, and the complete hyperparameter configuration used for SuperCircuit training and NSGA-II. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Architecture Scoring] Candidate Evaluation: Architectures are scored after only a few epochs of training on the shared SuperCircuit before feeding validation error into NSGA-II. Given known QNN challenges such as barren plateaus, initialization sensitivity, and slow convergence, short runs may produce unstable rankings; without an ablation correlating few-epoch scores to fully converged accuracies, the Pareto fronts and final accuracies rest on an unverified proxy.

    Authors: We acknowledge the risk that short training runs could yield unstable rankings given known QNN training difficulties. The few-epoch proxy was adopted to keep the overall search computationally feasible. We will add an ablation study in the revision that correlates few-epoch validation errors with fully converged accuracies on a representative subset of architectures, thereby providing empirical support for the proxy used to generate the Pareto fronts. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Objective Functions] Objective Definitions: The runtime cost proxy (wall-clock time) and subcircuit count estimation are load-bearing for the hardware-awareness claim, yet their precise formulations, assumptions about compilation, and validation against real NISQ metrics are not fully specified or ablated in the methods.

    Authors: We will expand the methods section to supply the exact mathematical formulations of both the wall-clock runtime proxy and the subcircuit-count estimator, together with the compilation and qubit-mapping assumptions underlying each. We will also include a brief discussion of how these proxies relate to simulated NISQ metrics and note the practical limitations on real-device validation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in derivation chain

full rationale

The QNAS framework trains a shared-parameter SuperCircuit and applies standard NSGA-II to jointly optimize three externally defined objectives: validation error (measured via short training runs on candidate architectures), a wall-clock runtime proxy, and estimated subcircuit count under qubit budget. These objectives are independent metrics drawn from standard ML and quantum hardware considerations, not derived from or equivalent to the search outputs by construction. No self-definitional steps, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the described chain; the discovered Pareto fronts and benchmark accuracies (e.g., 97.16% on MNIST) result from the optimization process rather than tautological reduction to inputs. The method is self-contained against external benchmarks like NSGA-II and standard QNN training.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are detailed beyond standard use of NSGA-II and quantum circuit concepts.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5627 in / 1242 out tokens · 63543 ms · 2026-05-10T18:25:16.738804+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Q-PhotoNAS: Hybrid Quantum Neural Architecture Search Framework on Photonic Devices

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Q-PhotoNAS applies genetic algorithm search to jointly optimize classical preprocessing, phase encoding, and photonic circuit structure for hybrid quantum-classical models, reporting 99.44% and 98.78% accuracy on Digi...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Quantum machine learning,

    J. Biamonteet al., “Quantum machine learning,”Nature, 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Variational quantum algorithms,

    M. Cerezoet al., “Variational quantum algorithms,”Nat. Rev. Phys., 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    The power of quantum neural networks,

    A. Abbaset al., “The power of quantum neural networks,”Nat. Comput. Sci., 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Continuous-variable quantum neural networks,

    N. Killoranet al., “Continuous-variable quantum neural networks,”Phys. Rev. Res., 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Quantum graph neural networks,

    G. Verdonet al., “Quantum graph neural networks,”arXiv, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

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

    K. Zamanet al., “A survey on quantum machine learning: Current trends, challenges, opportunities, and the road ahead,”arXiv:2310.10315, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Quantum convolutional neural network based on varia- tional quantum circuits,

    L.-H. Gonget al., “Quantum convolutional neural network based on varia- tional quantum circuits,”Opt. Commun., 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Quantum neural networks: Concepts, applications, and challenges,

    Y . Kwaket al., “Quantum neural networks: Concepts, applications, and challenges,” inICUFN, 2021

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    A comparative analysis of hybrid-quantum classical neural networks,

    K. Zamanet al., “A comparative analysis of hybrid-quantum classical neural networks,” inCSCE, 2024

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

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

    N. Innanet al., “Next-generation quantum neural networks: Enhancing efficiency, security, and privacy,” inIOLTS, 2025

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    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?” inDAC, 2025

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes,

    J. R. McCleanet al., “Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes,”Nat. Commun., 2018

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    Barren plateaus in variational quantum computing,

    M. Laroccaet al., “Barren plateaus in variational quantum computing,”Nat. Rev. Phys., 2025

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Quantum architecture search: A survey,

    D. Martyniuket al., “Quantum architecture search: A survey,”arXiv, 2024

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms,

    S. Wanget al., “Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms,”Nat. Commun., 2021

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    A comparative analysis and noise robustness evaluation in quantum neural networks,

    T. Ahmedet al., “A comparative analysis and noise robustness evaluation in quantum neural networks,”Scientific Reports, 2025

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    An initialization strategy for addressing barren plateaus in parametrized quantum circuits,

    E. Grantet al., “An initialization strategy for addressing barren plateaus in parametrized quantum circuits,”Quantum, 2019

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Neural architecture search: Insights from 1000 papers,

    C. Whiteet al., “Neural architecture search: Insights from 1000 papers,” arXiv, 2023

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Neural architecture search with reinforcement learning,

    B. Zoph and Q. V . Le, “Neural architecture search with reinforcement learning,”arXiv, 2017

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    Multi-objective hardware aware neural architecture search using hardware cost diversity,

    N. Sinhaet al., “Multi-objective hardware aware neural architecture search using hardware cost diversity,” inCVPRW, 2024

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Continuous evolution for efficient quantum architecture search,

    Q. Maet al., “Continuous evolution for efficient quantum architecture search,”EPJ Quantum Technol., 2024

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    Noisy hqnns: A comprehensive analysis of noise robust- ness in hybrid quantum neural networks,

    T. Ahmedet al., “Noisy hqnns: A comprehensive analysis of noise robust- ness in hybrid quantum neural networks,” inIJCNN, 2025

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Designing robust quantum neural networks via optimized circuit metrics,

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

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    Understanding and estimating the execution time of quantum circuits,

    N. Ma and H. Li, “Understanding and estimating the execution time of quantum circuits,”arXiv, 2025

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Is circuit depth accurate for comparing quantum circuit runtimes?

    M. Trembaet al., “Is circuit depth accurate for comparing quantum circuit runtimes?”arXiv, 2025

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Cutting is all you need: Execution of large-scale quantum neural networks on limited-qubit devices,

    A. Marchisioet al., “Cutting is all you need: Execution of large-scale quantum neural networks on limited-qubit devices,” inQAI

    work page

  27. [27]

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

    K. Zamanet al., “Studying the impact of quantum-specific hyperparameters on hybrid quantum-classical neural networks,” inCSCE, 2024

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    A comprehensive survey of neural architecture search: Challenges and solutions,

    P. Renet al., “A comprehensive survey of neural architecture search: Challenges and solutions,”ACM Comput. Surv., 2021

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    A survey on evolutionary neural architecture search,

    Y . Liuet al., “A survey on evolutionary neural architecture search,”IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst., 2021

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    Neural architecture search: A survey,

    T. Elskenet al., “Neural architecture search: A survey,”JMLR, 2019

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    Single path one-shot neural architecture search with uniform sampling,

    Z. Guoet al., “Single path one-shot neural architecture search with uniform sampling,” inECCV, 2020

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    HW-NAS-Bench: Hardware-aware neural architecture search benchmark,

    C. Liet al., “HW-NAS-Bench: Hardware-aware neural architecture search benchmark,”arXiv, 2025

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    Nascaps: A framework for neural architecture search to optimize the accuracy and hardware efficiency of convolutional capsule networks,

    A. Marchisioet al., “Nascaps: A framework for neural architecture search to optimize the accuracy and hardware efficiency of convolutional capsule networks,” inICCAD, 2020

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    FAQNAS: FLOPs-aware hybrid quantum neural architec- ture search using genetic algorithm,

    M. Kashifet al., “FAQNAS: FLOPs-aware hybrid quantum neural architec- ture search using genetic algorithm,”arXiv, 2025

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    Closing the loop: Resource- aware hybrid nas guided by analytical and hardware-calibrated quantum cost modeling,

    M. Kashif, A. Marchisio, and M. Shafique, “Closing the loop: Resource- aware hybrid nas guided by analytical and hardware-calibrated quantum cost modeling,” inDAC, 2026

    work page 2026

  36. [36]

    Gat-qnn: Genetic algorithm-based training of hybrid quantum neural networks,

    T. Ahmedet al., “Gat-qnn: Genetic algorithm-based training of hybrid quantum neural networks,” inIJCNN, 2026

    work page 2026

  37. [37]

    A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA- II,

    K. Debet al., “A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA- II,”IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 2002

    work page 2002

  38. [38]

    Neural optimization: Understanding trade-offs with pareto theory,

    F. Pallasdieset al., “Neural optimization: Understanding trade-offs with pareto theory,”Curr. Opin. Neurobiol., 2021

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    Evolutionary computation and convergence to a pareto front,

    D. A. V . Veldhuizenet al., “Evolutionary computation and convergence to a pareto front,” inGP, 1998

    work page 1998

  40. [40]

    An improved pareto front modeling algorithm for large- scale many-objective optimization,

    A. Panichella, “An improved pareto front modeling algorithm for large- scale many-objective optimization,” inGECCO, 2022

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    Hierarchy ranking method for multimodal multiobjective optimization with local pareto fronts,

    W. Liet al., “Hierarchy ranking method for multimodal multiobjective optimization with local pareto fronts,”IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 2022

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    Practical and efficient quantum circuit synthesis and transpiling with reinforcement learning,

    D. Kremeret al., “Practical and efficient quantum circuit synthesis and transpiling with reinforcement learning,”arXiv, 2024

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    Qasmtrans: A QASM quantum transpiler framework for NISQ devices,

    F. Huaet al., “Qasmtrans: A QASM quantum transpiler framework for NISQ devices,” inSC, 2023

    work page 2023

  44. [44]

    The MNIST database of handwritten digit images for machine learning research,

    L. Deng, “The MNIST database of handwritten digit images for machine learning research,”IEEE Signal Process. Mag., 2012

    work page 2012

  45. [45]

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

    H. Xiaoet al., “Fashion-MNIST: a novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms,”arXiv, 2017

    work page 2017

  46. [46]

    R. A. Fisher, “Iris,” UCI Machine Learning Repository, 1936, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C56C76

    work page doi:10.24432/c56c76 1936