
==== Front
Sci Rep
Sci Rep
Scientific Reports
2045-2322
Nature Publishing Group UK London

39122811
69384
10.1038/s41598-024-69384-6
Article
A hybrid quantum-classical classification model based on branching multi-scale entanglement renormalization ansatz
Hou Yan-Yan 1
Li Jian 2
Xu Tao xutao810716@126.com

3
Liu Xin-Yu 1
1 https://ror.org/05x21tp94 grid.460162.7 0000 0004 1790 6685 College of Information Science and Engineering, ZaoZhuang University, Zaozhuang, 277160 China
2 https://ror.org/04w9fbh59 grid.31880.32 0000 0000 8780 1230 School of Cyberspace Security, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, 100876 China
3 https://ror.org/05x21tp94 grid.460162.7 0000 0004 1790 6685 Network Center, ZaoZhuang University, Zaozhuang, 277160 China
9 8 2024
9 8 2024
2024
14 1852113 3 2024
5 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Tensor networks are emerging architectures for implementing quantum classification models. The branching multi-scale entanglement renormalization ansatz (BMERA) is a tensor network known for its enhanced entanglement properties. This paper introduces a hybrid quantum-classical classification model based on BMERA and explores the correlation between circuit layout, expressiveness, and classification accuracy. Additionally, we present an autodifferentiation method for computing the cost function gradient, which serves as a viable option for other hybrid quantum-classical models. Through numerical experiments, we demonstrate the accuracy and robustness of our classification model in tasks such as image recognition and cluster excitation discrimination, offering a novel approach for designing quantum classification models.

Keywords

Tensor networks
Hybrid quantum-classical classification model
Branching multi-scale entanglement renormalization ansatz (BMERA)
Quantum machine learning
Subject terms

Quantum information
Computer science
the Open Fund of Advanced Cryptography and System Security Key Laboratory of Sichuan ProvinceSKLACSS-202108 SKLACSS-202108 Hou Yan-Yan Li Jian Scientific Research Fund of Zaozhuang UniversityNo.102061901 Hou Yan-Yan Shandong Province College Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program ProjectS202310904040 S202310904040 S202310904040 Hou Yan-Yan Xu Tao Liu Xin-Yu issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Machine learning has made significant strides in diverse scientific and technological domains, such as image recognition and natural language processing. The rapid growth of big data and artificial intelligence has led to increased demands for improved machine learning performance. Quantum superposition and entanglement render quantum computation a superior solution for processing large-scale data. Researchers have integrated quantum computation with machine learning, resulting in a series of quantum machine learning algorithms1–7 applicable to discriminative8,9 and generative learning10,11 tasks. Tensor networks (TNs) extract features by contracting tensors, serving as crucial numerical tools for analyzing quantum multi-body systems.

Recently, researchers have begun applying tensor networks (TNs) in quantum classification models. Tree tensor networks (TTN)12, known for their logarithmic depth concerning input qubits, were initially employed in quantum classification models. Another tensor network used in quantum classification models is multi-scale entanglement renormalization ansatz (MERA). MERA shares a similar structure to TTN but incorporates isometry operations to capture entanglements across a wider scale. Research suggests that quantum machine learning models utilizing MERA outperform those utilizing TTNs in both classification and generative tasks13.

TNs can be regarded as quantum neural networks with specific structures, characterized by logarithmic circuit depth, which mitigates the barren plateau problem during parameter optimization14. Quantum classification models utilizing TTN or MERA leverage entanglement to capture the correlation among data features, where the entanglement entropy must satisfy the area law15. However, in some complex classification tasks, the correlation among data features may necessitate the violation of the area law by entanglement entropy. Are there TNs better suited for implementing quantum classification models? Branching multi-scale entanglement renormalization ansatz (BMERA) serves as a generalization of MERA, wherein its entanglement entropy can break the area law to support the volume law. BMERA’s favorable entanglement characteristics render it a suitable choice for quantum classification models.

Unlike general neural networks, BMERA relies on tensor contraction to process data, where the input data of local tensors cannot be sent to multiple outputs16. Consequently, quantum classification model based on BMERA is not scalable. Inspired by the entanglement advantage of BMERA and the scalability of classical neural networks, we design a hybrid quantum-classical classification model. In this model, BMERA and classical neural networks cooperates to construct the cost function of classification model. Subsequently, a classical optimizer is employed to optimize the model parameters. This classification model transfers some tasks challenging for quantum devices to classical neural networks, so quantum circuit has a shallow circuit depth and is suitable for implementation on noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) devices17,18.

Our work contributes in three main ways. Firstly, we propose a novel parameterized quantum circuit based on BMERA, which utilizes a shallower circuit for data feature extraction. Secondly, we analyze the relationship between circuit layout, expressibility, and classification accuracy, providing valuable insights for enhancing classification accuracy. Lastly, we propose an autodifferentiation method for computing the cost function gradient, which serves as a viable option for other hybrid quantum-classical models. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed model surpasses quantum classification models based on TTN and MERA in both MNIST (handwriting recognition with binary images) and quantum cluster state excitation discrimination tasks. Additionally, we illustrate that the proposed model exhibits robustness against depolarization noise.

This paper is organized as follows: “Method” section presents the hybrid quantum-classical classification model based on BMERA, and “Numerical simulations and discussions” section verifies the accuracy and robustness of this model in classical and quantum classification tasks. Finally, we present our conclusions and discuss future research directions.

Method

In this section, we introduce the hybrid quantum-classical classification model based on BMERA. If the input data originates from quantum processes, it is already in a quantum state and can be directly used as input for the model. For classical input data, the primary task is to encode it into quantum states. Encoding methods include amplitude encoding, qubit encoding, and hybrid encoding. Among these methods, qubit encoding methods encodes each element into the rotation angle of a single-qubit gate, resulting in a shallower circuit depth and easier implementing on NISQ devices. The core work of the hybrid quantum classical classification model involves the collaboration of parameterized quantum circuits and classical neural networks. Firstly, parameterized quantum circuits act on encoded quantum states to extract data features. Typically, the number of output qubits exceeds the qubits needed for predicting labels. Therefore, measuring the output state to obtain the expectation is necessary, which is then forwarded to classical neural networks for extracting predicted labels.

Both parameterized quantum circuit and classical neural networks require a large number of parameters. As the initial parameters are random, it is difficult for the initial classification model to be optimal. Similar to classification models implemented by classical neural networks, we introduce a classical optimizer to optimize parameterized quantum circuit and neural networks, obtaining optimal parameters through iterative optimization. It is noteworthy that the parameterized quantum circuit and classical neural networks are alternately updated during the optimization process. During each iteration, only the parameters that were not updated in the previous iteration are updated, while the other parameters remain unchanged. Similar to layer-wise learning used in quantum neural networks19,20, alternating parameter updates are beneficial to addressing the barren plateau problem during parameter optimization process. Figure 1 shows the framework of the hybrid quantum-classical classification model based on BMERA.Figure 1 The framework of the hybrid quantum-classical classification model based on BMERA. Input is classical data, whose features are extracted and mapped into quantum states (represented by circles). Then, quantum states are sent to BMERA. Each layer contains one or two sub-layers, where yellow and white rectangles represent unitary modules of the first and second sub-layers, respectively. Data dimension is reduced by partial trace operation, represented by hash marks. The expectation of the Pauli operator for the output is obtained through multiple measurement operations. Classical neural networks act on the expectation values and output predicted labels. In the optimization process, the parameters of BMERA and classical neural networks are iteratively optimized by a classical optimizer.

Map data into quantum states

Let D={(x1,y1),...,(xm,ym)} denote training data set, where xi=(xi1,xi2, ...,xin) is n-dimensional data vector, and yi∈{0,...,l-1} indicates the corresponding label. For classification tasks, the kernel work is to build the function f:xi→yi, mapping data vector xi to the corresponding label yi. For qubit encoding, each element xij is first scaled to [-1,1], and then mapped into the state1 |ϕ(xij)⟩=cos(π2xij)|0⟩+sin(π2xij)|1⟩.

xi corresponds to the tensor product state2 |ϕ(xi)⟩=|ϕ(xi1)⟩⊗|ϕ(xi2)⟩⊗...⊗|ϕ(xin)⟩,

where |ϕ(xi)⟩ is located in 2n-dimensional Hilbert space. Qubit encoding can be implemented by fixed quantum circuit P(xi)=⊗j=1nPij on the initial state |0⟩⊗n, where3 Pij=e-iπ2xijσy=cos(π2xij),-sin(π2xij)sin(π2xij),cos(π2xij).

Parameterized quantum circuit based on BMERA

Parameterized quantum circuit, also called ansatz, plays an essential role in the hybrid quantum-classical classification model. The challenging task in implementing the hybrid quantum-classical classification model is to construct an ansatz that can represent the solution space of the problem being solved21. The entanglement entropy of BMERA can break the area law to support the volume law. In classification tasks with strong data correlation, BMERA can effectively represent the solution space of the problem in classification tasks with strong data correlation, so as to better approximate the classification model.

Similar to ansatzes based on general tensor networks, BMERA consists of 2-qubit unitary modules arranged in hierarchical layout. For n-qubit input, BMERA needs L=O(log(n)) layers. In the ith layer, adjacent 2i qubits are entangled to build local correlations. Let4 ρ0=|ϕ(xi)⟩⟨ϕ(xi)|=ρ01⊗ρ02⊗...⊗ρ0n,

represent n-qubit input, where ρ0i represents the state of the ith qubit. In the first layer, the unitary U1(θ) acts on ρ0 and produces the entangled state5 ρ1=|ϕ1(xi)⟩⟨ϕ1(xi)|=ρ11⊗ρ12⊗...⊗ρ1n/2,

where ρ1i represents the entangled state of the ith adjacent qubit pair. In the t layer, Ut(θ) acts on the output state ρt-1 of the t-1 layer, and produce the entangled state6 ρt=|φt(xi)⟩⟨φt(xi)|=ρt1⊗ρt2⊗...⊗ρtn/2t,

where ρti represents the state entangled by 2t adjacent qubits and t∈{1,...,L}. As the number of circuit layers increases, BMERA gradually builds entanglement on a larger scale. In the last layer, unitary operation UL(θ) acts on the state ρL-1 and gets the final output state ρL entangling all qubits.

Figure 2 shows a BMERA with 16-qubit input, including four layers. Starting from the second layer, each layer contains two sub-layers to establish a larger range of entanglement. Each sub-layer includes multiple two-qubit unitary modules Vij(θ). Unitary modules Vij(θ) are implemented by single-qubit and two-qubit unitary operations, where single-qubit unitary operations are rotation gates controlled by trainable parameters and two-qubit unitary operations are controlled gates acting on adjacent qubits.Figure 2 The structure of BMERA with 16-qubit input. ρ0 represents the input including a0∼a15. Unitary operation in the first layer acts on ρ0 and ouputs the entangled state ρ1, where neighboring 2 qubits are entangled. Unitary operation in the second layer forms an entangled state ρ2, where neighboring 4 qubits are entangled. Unitary operation in the third layer forms the entangled state ρ3, where neighboring 8 qubits are entangled. 16 qubits are entangled through 4 layer unitary operations, and a highly entangled state ρ4 is built. Rectangles represent unitary modules Vij(θi,j).

Classification is equivalent to mapping the input to its predicted label vectors. Typically, the dimension of the label vector is less than the dimension of the input. Therefore, the number of output qubits should be less than the number of input qubits. BMERA establish entanglement over a larger scale, but input and output have the identical qubits, so that BMERA cannot implement shrinkage mapping from the input to the predicted label. Quantum convolutional neural network (QCNN) is an important quantum neural network model. In each layer, only some qubits are output to subsequent layer, where partial trace operation are used to reduce output qubits. The output of BMERA is obtained through multiple layers of unitary and partial trace operations, and its expectation corresponds to the extracted feature.

Causal cone is an important property of MERA, consisting of gates and connections that affect output qubits. BMERA, an extension of MERA, also has causal cone property, and output is affected by the unitary operations in its causal cone. Inspired by the contractility of QCNN and the causal cone property of BMERA, we design a reduced BMERA that only uses partial continuous qubits as outputs, and the quantum circuit retains only the unitary modules located in the causal cone where the output qbits are located.

In reduced BMERA, υi-1 qubits of the (i-1)th layer remain as the input of the ith layer, and the remaining qubits are reduced by partial trace operation. The output of the ith layer can be written as ρi′=tro~i(Ui(θ)ρi-1′Ui†(θ)), where tro~i denotes the partial trace operation acting on the qubits other than the output qubit in the ith layer, and ρi′ and ρi-1′ represent the input and output of the i-1 layer, respectively.

Figure 3 shows a reduced BMERA with 16-qubit input. Structurally, the reduced BMERA is a binary tree. As the number of layers increases, the size of subtrees gradually increases, but the number of output qubits decreases. In the final layer, the output qubits a7, a0, a15, and a8 are measured, and their expectation values are transmitted to classical neural networks. Reduced BMERA can effectively extracts the input features while retaining the entanglement of output qubits. Classical convolutional neural network (CNN) has translation invariance, and this means that the same convolutional layer adopts the shared filter weights. CNN has higher accuracy for classifying data with space correlation22. Inspired by the translation invariance of CNN, reduced BMERA adopts the same parameters for the unitary modules in the same sub-layer.Figure 3 The structure of a reduced BMERA with 16-qubit input. The input ρ0′ includes qubits a0∼a15. Each layer has multiple sub-trees, and each dotted box represents a subtree. ρ0′, ρ1′, ρ2′ and ρ3′ represent the inputs of the 1∼4th layers, respectively. Partial trace operation acts on some qubits to reduce output qubits. In each layer, quantum swap operation is adopted to establish a larger scale entanglement. The final output is obtained by measuring the expectation values of Pauli operator σz for the qubits a7, a0, a15, and a8.

Cost function and optimization

The critical task of the hybrid quantum-classical classification model lies in formulating the cost function relevant to the problem at hand. Cost functions can be constructed using methods such as mean squared error (MSE) and cross entropy methods. Cross-entropy method is more suitable for classification tasks, and its definition is7 fc(lxi,yi)=-1n∑i(yilog(lxi)+(1-yi)log(1-lxi)),

where yi and lxi represent the correct and predicted labels, respectively, and n is the number of training samples. For the hybrid quantum-classical classification model, the initial step involves extracting data features using a parameterized quantum circuit.”

Let U(θ) denote the parameterized quantum circuit acting on the input |ϕ(xi)⟩, then the output is8 |ϕ′(xi)⟩=U(θ)|ϕ(xi)⟩,

where θ represents trainable parameters. Measure the expectation of Pauli operator σz for the jth qubit, and get the expectation value9 Ej(θ)=⟨ϕ(xi)|U(θ)σzjU†(θ)|ϕ(xi)⟩,

where σzj means the operator acting on the jth qubit.

Subsequently, the expectation values of all output qubits are used to construct the feature vector E(θ)={E1(θ), E2(θ),...., Eno(θ)}, where no denotes the number of output qubits. Finally, E(θ) is transmitted to classical neural network fnn(E(θ),β) to get the predicted label lxi, where β denotes trainable parameters of classical neural network. Based on cross-entropy method, the cost function of the hybrid quantum-classical classification model can be written as10 C(θ,β)=fc(lxi,yi)∘fnn(E(θ),β)∘ftn(|ϕ(xi)⟩,θ)=fc(fnn(ftn(|ϕ(xi)⟩,θ),β),yi),

where ftn(|ϕ(xi)⟩,θ) represents the mapping from the input |ϕ(xi)⟩ to the expectation value E(θ), and fc(lxi,yi) means the cross-entropy function that maps the predicted label lxi and the correct label yi to the cost function C(θ,β).

The subsequent step involves computing the optimal parameters (θ∗,β∗) by minimizing the cost function C(θ,β). Gradient descent is a common optimization method in machine learning. Its core concept involves updating the parameters of the cost function along the direction of gradient descent. Autodifferentiation is an effective approach for computing the gradient of a composite cost function. In this approach, the cost function is decomposed into several subfunctions, and the gradient can be computed by applying the chain rule of backpropagation to the partial derivatives of these subfunctions. Consequently, the gradient descent method involves computing a series of partial derivatives of the subfunctions23.

Let θj represent the jth parameter of θ. By the derivative chain rule of backpropagation, the partial derivative of the cost function C(θ,β) with respect to Ek(θ) is11 gk=∂(fc(lxi)·fnn(E(θ),β))∂Ek(θ)=∂fc(lxi)∂lxi·∂(fnn(E(θ),β))∂Ek(θ),

where ∂(fc(lxi))∂lxi=1-yi1-lxi-yilxi and ∂(fnn(E(θ),β))∂Ek(θ) are computed by classical computers. Let g={g1,g2,...,gno} represent the vector consisting of partial derivative gk. Then, the gradient of C(θ,β) with respect to the jth parameter θj is12 ∂(fc(lxi)·fnn(E(θ),β))·ftn(|ϕ(xi)⟩,θ)∂θj=∂(g·E(θ))∂θj=∑k=1ogk∂Ek(θ)∂θj,

A critical aspect of minimizing the cost function involves solving the partial derivative of the expectation value Ek(θ) with respect to θj, which can be computed using the parameter shift rule2413 ∂Ek(θ)∂θj=Ek(θj+π2Δj,θ~j)-Ek(θj-π2Δj,θ~j),

where Δj is a small increment of θj in the positive direction, and θ~j denotes all parameters of θ except for θj. θj+π2Δj and θj-π2Δj are shift parameters for evaluating the gradient. The parameter shift rule enables precise gradient computation without discretization errors, and its circuit is easily implementable on near-term quantum devices.

Expressibility

Expressibility is a crucial metric for assessing parameterized quantum circuits. It indicates the capability of states generated by parameterized quantum circuits to span the entire Hilbert space. States generated by Haar random unitaries uniformly cover the Hilbert space, thus exhibiting the highest expressibility. The smaller the distance between the state distribution resulting from uniform sampling of a parameterized quantum circuit and the Haar random unitary distribution, the more expressive the circuit becomes. Since the Haar random unitary follows a uniform distribution, greater uniformity in the states generated by randomly sampling parameterized quantum circuits results in higher expressibility. Thus, expressibility can be quantified as the deviation of the probability distribution of states generated by a parameterized quantum circuit from that of the Haar random unitary.

Let Q(α) denote a parameterized quantum circuit with n-qubit input, and |ψ(α1)⟩ and |ψ(α2)⟩ represent two states generated by randomly sampling the parameters of Q(α). Fb=|⟨ψ(α1)|ψ(α2)⟩|t means the t-moment fidelity between |ψ(α1)⟩ and |ψ(α2)⟩. Assuming 1-moment fidelity is used to describe the expressibility of Q(α), then Fb can be rewritten as |⟨ψ(α1)|ψ(α2)⟩|2, abbreviated as fidelity. Random sampling states and obtain the fidelity distribution function Pb(Fb;α). Similarly, Fh represents the fidelity of the states produced by Haar-random unitary with n-qubit input, and its distribution function is Ph(Fh)=(N-1)(1-Fh)N-2, where N=2n is the dimension of Hilbert space.

Let KL(Pb(Fb;α)||Ph(Fh))) denote the KL divergence between the fidelity distribution functions Pb(Fb;α) and Ph(Fh). The smaller the KL divergence, the closer the fidelity distribution of Q(α) is to that of Haar-random unitary. As Haar random unitary has the highest expressibility, the closer the unitary distribution of Q(α) is to the Haar random unitary distribution, the stronger the representation of Q(α)25. When KL(Pb(Fb;α)||Ph(Fh)))=0, Pb(Fb;α) is equal to Ph(Fh), and Q(α) has the highest expressibility. We define the expressibility of Q(α) as14 R(Q(α))=-log10(KL(Pb(Fb;α)||Ph(Fh))),

the larger R(Q(α)), the stronger the expressibility of Q(α). In the hybrid quantum-classical classification model, expressibility corresponds to the capacity to address the target problem effectively. Greater expressibility results in the output state of the parameterized quantum circuit being closer to the correct solution.

The layout of parameterized quantum circuits can be changed by varying qubit connections and gates. The expressibility of parameterized quantum circuits with different layouts is analyzed in follows. Figure 4 shows 8 types of circuit layouts of 2-qubit unitary module Uij(θi,j), and most of them are built based on previous studies26. Circuit (1) consists of one-qubit rotation gates RX and RZ and two-qubit controlled gate CNOT. Each CNOT gate acts on one neighboring qubit pair to construct entanglement. Circuits (2) and (3) have a similar layout to circuit (1), except that CNOT gate is replaced with controlled-RZ and controlled-RX gates, respectively. Circuit (4) is implemented by H, CNOT, and RX gates , and it has the lowest expressibility. Circuit (5), first presented in Ref27, comprises RY and CNOT gates. Circuits (6) and (7) adopt the similar layout to circuit (5), except that CNOT gate is replaced with controlled-RZ and controlled-RX gates, respectively. Circuit (8), denoting arbitrary SU(4)20, has the highest expressibility.Figure 4 The circuit layouts of unitary module Uij(θi,j). Each panel represents a circuit layout. RX, RY, and RZ denote controlled rotation gates around X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis, respectively. M(κ,μ,ν)=RZ(κ)RX(-π/2)RZ(μ)RX(π/2)RZ(ν) represents arbitrary SU(4) gate.

Table 1 shows the expressibilities of unitary module Uij(θi,j) and BMERA with 8-qubit input, consisting of Uij(θi,j). Each column corresponds to one circuit layout in Fig. 4. The first row shows the expressibility of the unitary module Uij(θi,j), and the second row shows the expressibility of BMERA built by Uij(θi,j). Fidelity distribution is obtained by 10000 samples. We can find that the higher the expressibility of Uij(θi,j), the higher the expressibility of the corresponding BMERA. Circuit (3) has higher expressibility than circuit (2), and circuit (7) has higher expressibility than circuit (6). This conclusion is consistent with the fact that controlled-RX has higher expressibility than controlled-RZ26. Circuit (8) has the highest expressibility among all circuit layouts. Figure 5 shows the histograms of the fidelity distributions of circuit (8) and BMERA built by it. The Hilbert space dimension of BMERA with 8-qubit input is 256. This larger dimension makes Ph(Fh) and Pb(Fb;θ) near 0, so the X-axis of Fig. 5 only shows the range [0, 0.1]. Simulation results show that when the parameterized quantum circuit has high expressibility, its fidelity distribution is close to that of Haar random unitary.Table 1 The expressibility of the unitary model Uij(θi,j) and BMERA.

Circuit	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	
Vij(θ)	0.943	1.036	1.149	0.409	0.609	1.432	1.587	1.854	
BMERA	1.159	1.252	1.638	0.179	0.247	1.721	1.854	2.301	

Figure 5 The histograms of the fidelity distributions. Panels (a–b) show the histograms of the fidelity distributions of the circuit (8) and the corresponding BMERA. The orange line represents the fidelity distribution of the Haar-random unitary. The fidelity distributions of the circuit (8) and BMERA are close to the fidelity distributions of the corresponding Haar-random unitary, respectively.

Numerical simulations and discussions

In this section, we evaluate the performance of the hybrid quantum-classical classification model using the TensorFlow Quantum (TFQ) framework. Initially, we demonstrate the accuracy of the proposed classification model in classical classification tasks. Next, we verify the accuracy of these classification tasks under noise environments. Lastly, we demonstrate the accuracy of the proposed classification model in cluster state excitation discrimination tasks.

Classical data classification

MNIST dataset is a widely used data set in machine learning, consisting of 60000 training samples and 10000 test samples. The samples consist of 28×28-dimensional grayscale images, each representing a handwritten digit from 0 to 9. Our simulations primarily focus on binary classification tasks, where we select two categories of handwritten digits for the training set. Due to the limited qubits and shallower circuits of NISQ devices, the samples are reduced to 8-dimensional vectors using principal component analysis (PCA).

Initially, we analyzed the accuracy of the binary classification task. Besides 8 circuit layouts shown in Fig. 4, we introduced an alternative circuit layout, wherein the unitary modules of the first sublayer are implemented by circuit (4), and the unitary modules of the second sublayer are implemented by circuit (5). We adopt the Adaptive moment estimation (Adam) method28 to train the hybrid quantum-classical classification model, with a the training data size of 32, and a learning speed of 0.01. Table 2 shows the accuracies and standard deviations of various binary classification tasks. Figure 6 shows the accuracy and standard deviation in the form of a bar chart.Table 2 The accuracies and standard deviations (%).

Circuit	Parameter	5 and 6	0 and 7	3 and 6	4 and 5	7 and 8	4 and 9	
1	68	95.42±0.55	99.06±0.10	95.92±0.29	94.35±0.56	94.16±0.54	83.39±0.73	
2	85	96.69±0.27	99.03±0.75	97.66±0.20	98.95±0.24	97.21±0.32	87.08±0.37	
3	85	96.73±0.12	98.93±0.13	98.91±0.17	98.15±0.16	97.06±0.32	87.39±0.57	
4	34	86.64±0.57	95.49±0.63	82.28±0.42	83.00±0.43	83.68±1.79	70.84±0.95	
5	34	95.23±0.05	99.15±0.05	98.63±0.16	97.32±0.61	96.88±0.27	86.90±0.15	
6	102	96.78±0.32	99.21±0.01	98.70±0.13	98.25±0.04	97.29±0.24	87.07±1.26	
7	102	96.76±0.33	99.27±0.57	98.94±0.01	98.04±0.12	97.32±0.24	87.71±0.63	
8	255	97.17±0.41	99.25±0.34	98.78±0.06	98.52±0.15	97.49±0.13	87.39±0.94	
Alter	34	95.53±0.23	96.90±0.29	97.28±0.12	95.45±0.53	95.16±0.58	81.83±0.71	
The first column shows the circuit layouts adopted by BMERA, and the second column indicates the number of trainable parameters. The remaining columns represent mean accuracies and standard deviations for six binary classification tasks. The last row denotes mean accuracies and standard deviations of the classification model based on the alternate circuit layout. All accuracies and standard deviations are obtained by five random simulations.

Figure 6 The accuracies and standard deviations (%) for classification models based on different circuit layouts in bar chart.

The accuracy of the classifier based on alternate circuit layout falls between that of classifiers based on circuits (4) and (5). In certain cases, the accuracy may approach or exceed that of the higher accuracy among these two cases. Digits 4 and 9 exhibit similar local features, and many detailed features are lost during the dimensionality reduction process. consequently yielding lower accuracy for the classification task. Circuit (4) has the poorest expressibility, resulting in the classification model based on it having the lowest accuracy among all models. Except for the classification model based on circuit (4) and the task involving the classification of digits 4 and 9, the accuracies of others are no less than 94%.

Upon comparing Tables 1 and 2, we observe a correlation between the accuracy and the expressibility of BMERA. In general, higher expressibility correlates with higher accuracy26. In most binary classification tasks, there is little variation in accuracy among classification models based on circuits (6), (7), and (8). Despite circuit (8) having the highest expressibility among the binary classification models, its accuracy is lower than that of models based on circuits (6) and (7) in certain classification tasks. This discrepancy is primarily attributed to circuit (8) requiring excessive parameters, leading to overfitting. Generally, BMERA models with higher expressibility require more parameters and complex circuit connections. Circuit layouts should be chosen based on circuit scale and accuracy requirements in practical tasks. If there is minimal difference in accuracy among different circuit layouts, we select the BMERA model with fewer parameters, as it is easier to implement on NISQ devices.

In the hybrid quantum-classical classification model, the number of parameters in BMERA grows polynomially with the number of qubits. To reduce the number of parameters, the unitary modules in the same sub-layer adopt the same parameters, drawing inspiration from the identical filter parameters in the same layer of a CNN for translation invariance. Table 3 displays the accuracies and standard deviations for classification models incorporating translation invariance. Figure 7 shows the accuracies and standard deviation in bar chart. In comparison to Tables 2 and 3, classification models lacking translation invariance exhibit higher accuracy but require more parameters than those with translation invariance. Classification models based on circuits (6), (7), and (8) exhibit minor differences in accuracy between those with translation invariance and those without.Table 3 The accuracies and standard deviations (%) for classification models based on different circuit layouts (translation invariance).

Circuit	Parameter	5 and 6	0 and 7	3 and 6	4 and 5	7 and 8	4 and 9	
1	20	91.90±0.31	98.08±0.66	92.50±0.50	92.08±0.61	91.33±0.77	77.69±1.36	
2	37	96.21±0.41	96.49±0.57	98.35±0.42	97.31±0.60	96.38±0.45	85.53±0.61	
3	37	96.64±0.23	99.10±0.07	98.35±0.12	96.99±0.16	96.87±0.07	87.81±0.42	
4	10	81.40±1.18	94.55±0.46	82.57±0.11	79.61±0.54	82.51±2.10	74.06±0.48	
5	10	93.52±0.31	98.72±0.34	90.94±0.45	93.52±0.12	94.46±0.42	80.89±0.29	
6	30	96.76±0.22	99.24±0.08	98.92±0.08	97.76±0.36	96.58±0.00	87.75±0.49	
7	30	96.62±0.38	99.08±0.12	98.75±0.14	97.27±0.13	97.06±0.33	88.19±0.87	
8	75	96.96±0.76	99.10±0.25	98.79±0.22	97.70±0.43	97.33±0.27	88.41±0.11	
Alter	14	94.00±0.39	96.98±1.00	94.83±0.47	92.91±0.35	94.66±0.64	82.33±0.59	

Figure 7 The accuracies and standard deviations (%) for classification models based on different circuit layouts (translation invariance).

Table 4 shows the accuracies and standard deviations of the hybrid quantum-classical classification model based on BMERA (abbreviated as HBMERA), with quantum classification models based on TTN13, MERA13, and BMERA. Figure 8 shows the accuracies and standard deviation in bar chart.Table 4 The accuracies and standard deviations (%) of the TTN, MERA, BMERA, and HBMERA classification models.

Classification	5 and 6	0 and 7	3 and 6	4 and 5	7 and 8	4 and 9	
TTN	79.79±0.35	92.53±0.18	82.12±0.32	81.69±0.47	76.78±0.39	78.58±0.16	
MERA	94.72±0.18	98.57±0.11	95.20±0.19	94.32±0.20	94.12±0.09	85.65±0.57	
BMERA	95.23±0.05	98.71±0.00	98.52±0.66	96.09±0.13	96.10±0.07	85.70±0.42	
HBMERA	95.83±0.30	99.15±0.05	98.63±0.16	97.32±0.61	96.88±0.27	86.92±0.15	

Figure 8 The accuracies and standard deviations (%) of the TTN, MERA, BMERA, and HBMERA classification models.

Figure 9 shows the accuracies of the above four classification models based on circuit (5). The HBMERA classification model exhibits the highest accuracy across all classification tasks. Moreover, the accuracy of the BMERA classification model is lower than that of the HBMERA classification model but higher than those of the TTN and MERA classification models.Figure 9 The accuracies of classification models based on TNs. Panels (a–f) show the accuracies for 6 classification tasks. The blue, orange, green, and red lines represent the accuracies of the TTN, MERA, BMERA, and HBMERA classification models, respectively.

At present, several classification models have been implemented using tensor networks, such as Unitary Tree Tensor Network (UTTN)29, Residual Matrix Product State (RMPS)30, and Projected Entangled Pair States (PEPS)31.The core idea of these models is to view tensor networks as a special type of network, map data to tensor states, and achieve recognition and classification tasks through tensor contraction. Essentially, these models are still implemented using classical computational methods. To further evaluate the performance of BMERA and HBMERA classifiers, we conducted classification experiments on the MNIST and Fashion-MNIST datasets. Due to the limitations of currently available quantum circuit scales, we only implemented binary classification tasks. For the MNIST dataset, we selected classes 5 and 6, and for the Fashion-MNIST dataset, we selected classes 1 and 2. Tables 5 and 6 present the accuracy of various classification models applied to MNIST and Fashion-MNIST dataset. These models include 1-layer Neural Network (1-layer NN), Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Recurrent Neural Network (RNN), Fully Connected Network (FCN)), UTTN, RMPS, PEPS, along with the proposed BMERA and HBMERA models.Table 5 Accuracy of BMERA, HBMERA and classical models on MNIST dataset.

Models	BMERA	HBMERA	1-layer NN	CNN	RNN	FCN	UTTN	RMPS	PEPS	
Accuracy	97.13	97.35	97.70	99.73	100	99.05	98.16	99.09	99.22	

Table 6 Accuracy of BMERA, HBMERA and classical models on Fashion-MNIST dataset.

Models	BMERA	HBMERA	1-layer NN	CNN	RNN	FCN	UTTN	RMPS	PEPS	
Accuracy	97.90	98.45	98.67	99.70	99.00	99.32	99.10	98.97	99.85	

From the simulation results, we observe that the accuracies of the BMERA and HBMERA models are lower than those of commonly used neural networks and TN models. This is primarily due to the scale limitations of existing quantum circuits, which make it challenging to process high-dimensional data. Dimensionality reduction is required before classical data can be encoded into quantum states, which impacts the overall accuracy of the algorithm.

Classical data classification under noise environment

In this subsection, we simulate depolarization noise acting on an 8-qubit quantum system and compare classification accuracies in both noisy and noiseless environments. The state ρ is replaced by a completely hybrid state ρ~=sI/2+(1-s)ρ, with s probability of I/2 and 1-s probability of ρ under depolarization noise environment. s is restricted in a small region [0, 0.05] to ensure the state ρ undergoes minimal alteration. Tables 7 and 8 show the accuracies and standard deviations of the HBMERA classification model based on the circuit (5), with depolarization noise acting on the initial state and the whole quantum system, respectively. Figures 10 and 11 show the corresponding accuracy and standard deviation in bar chart. Figure 12 shows the accuracies of binary classification task in noise and noiseless environments.Table 7 The accuracies and standard deviations (%) of the HBMERA classification model with depolarization noise acting on input states.

Noise	5 and 6	0 and 7	3 and 6	4 and 5	7 and 8	4 and 9	
s=0	95.83±0.30	99.15±0.05	98.63±0.16	97.32±0.61	96.88±0.27	86.92±0.15	
s=0.01	97.15±0.19	99.21±0.05	98.48±0.10	96.89±0.41	96.15±0.14	84.54±0.43	
s=0.02	96.95±0.39	98.53±0.02	98.90±0.02	97.40±0.19	95.45±0.42	86.12±0.56	
s=0.03	97.00±0.56	99.06±0.16	98.02±0.37	96.98±0.38	96.94±0.45	85.55±0.68	
s=0.04	95.71±0.14	99.02±0.08	98.05±0.48	97.14±0.18	96.76±0.25	85.53±0.49	
s=0.05	96.32±0.27	98.69±0.07	98.75±0.08	96.77±0.14	96.36±0.33	82.54±0.68	
The first column describes the noise probability s, and the remaining columns represent the mean accuracies and standard deviations of 6 binary classification tasks of MNIST dataset.

Table 8 The accuracies and standard deviations (%) of the HBMERA classification model with depolarization noise acting on the whole quantum system.

Classification	5 and 6	0 and 7	3 and 6	4 and 5	7 and 8	4 and 9	
s=0	95.83±0.30	99.15±0.05	98.63±0.16	97.32±0.61	96.88±0.27	86.92±0.15	
s=0.01	96.12±0.11	98.51±0.10	98.41±0.12	96.52±0.30	96.38±0.31	86.40±0.37	
s=0.02	96.70±0.06	98.94±0.06	98.10±0.46	97.30±0.41	95.50±0.28	85.54±0.54	
s=0.03	96.70±0.41	96.54±0.19	98.12±0.13	96.61±0.28	96.71±0.29	84.31±0.96	
s=0.04	96.63±0.29	98.91±0.28	98.10±0.03	97.22±0.22	97.35±0.08	85.32±0.31	
s=0.05	96.38±0.19	98.28±0.18	98.63±0.13	97.35±0.23	95.07±0.42	86.60±0.57	

Figure 10 The accuracies and standard deviations (%) of the HBMERA classification model with depolarization noise acting on input states.

Figure 11 The accuracies and standard deviations (%) of the HBMERA classification model with depolarization noise acting on the whole quantum system.

Simulation results indicate that the accuracy discrepancy for the identical binary classification task between noisy and noiseless environments ranges from 0 to 0.05. The maximum discrepancy, observed in the classifying task distinguishing digits 4 and 9, is 0.0338. Notably, this particular classification task also exhibits the lowest accuracy in a noiseless environment. Interestingly, in certain instances, the mean accuracies in noisy environments surpass those in noiseless environments. Simulation results suggest that depolarization noise minimally affects classification accuracy when s is below the threshold of 0.05. We can find that classification accuracy changes minimally compared to the noiseless environment, regardless of whether the noise affects the input state or the whole system. Thus, the HBMERA classification model demonstrates good robustness under depolarization noise.Figure 12 The accuracies of the HBMERA classification model under noise and noiseless environments. Panels (a–b) show the accuracies of classifying digits 4 and 5 with depolarization noise acting on input states and the whole quantum system, respectively. Solid lines represent the accuracies under noiseless environments, and dotted lines represent the accuracies under depolarization noise environments.

Quantum state discrimination

In this subsection, we evaluate the performance of the HBMERA classification model in discriminating cluster state excitations. Cluster states, highly entangled states, serve as common initial states for measurement-based quantum systems. However, due to their higher dimensions, cluster states require exponentially increasing resources for data processing as the number of qubits grows. Consequently, discriminating cluster state excitations using classical computers is a challenging16. We conduct a discriminative experiment on cluster state excitation. The preparation process for cluster states is as follows: Initialize the state |0⟩n, where n represents the number of qubits. For an 8-qubit cluster state, the initial state is |0⟩8.

Apply Hadamard gates to each qubit to create an superposition state |+⟩8, where |+⟩=(|0⟩+|1⟩)/2.

Apply Controlled-Z(CZ) gates between adjacent qubits. A CZ gate applies a phase flip (Z operation) to the target qubit depending on the state of the control qubit. This operation can be written as 15 CZ=100001000010000-1.

For qubits i and i+1, CZ operation is described as 16 CZi,i+1=Ii+1ifqubitiis|0⟩Zi+1ifqubitiis|1⟩,

where Ii+1 represents identity operation applied to the (i+1)th qubit and Zi+1 represents Z operation applied to the (i+1)th qubit.

Repeat applying CZ gates sequentially between adjacent qubits until all desired pairs have been operated upon.

In the excitation state preparation process, the RX gate acts on each qubit with a random rotation angle within the range of [-π,π]. Subsequently, labels are assigned to cluster states based on the rotation angle: if the angle is between -π/2 and π/2, the label is assigned as 1, indicating excitation; otherwise, it is assigned as -1, indicating no excitation.

In this simulation, the training set includes 800 cluster and test set including 200 test set. The training process consists of 25 epochs with a batch size of 32. Table 9 shows the accuracies and standard deviations for discriminating 8-qubit and 16-qubit cluster states excitation using TTN13, MERA13, BMERA, and HBMERA classification models, with each datum obtained from 5 simulations. Figure 13 shows the corresponding accuracy and standard deviation in bar chart. Figure 14 shows the accuracies of discriminating 8-qubit and 16-qubit cluster states excitations. Simulation results reveal that the HBMERA classification model achieves mean accuracies of 99.06% and 97.92% in discriminating 8-qubit and 16-qubit cluster state excitations, respectively, surpassing those of the TTN, MERA, and BMERA classification models. The HBMERA classification model demonstrates superior accuracy in discriminating cluster state excitations.Table 9 The accuracies and standard deviations (%) for discriminating cluster state excitation.

State	TTN	MERA	BMERA	HBMERA	
8-qubit cluster	74.38±6.50	96.25±7.52	95.78±3.69	99.06±1.02	
16-qubit cluster	79.19±8.46	87.42±0.60	93.62±0.43	97.92±0.60	
The first and second rows represent the accuracies of discriminating 8-qubit and 16-qubit cluster states excitation.

Figure 13 The accuracies and standard deviations (%) for discriminating cluster state excitation.

Figure 14 The accuracies of discriminating cluster state excitation or not. Panels (a–b) show the accuracies for discriminating 8-qubit and 16-qubit cluster states excitation. The solid lines represent the accuracies of the HBMERA classification model. The blue, orange, and green dotted lines represent the accuracies of the TTN, MERA, and BMERA classification models, respectively.

Conclusions and future work

Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms offer a promising avenue for integrating NISQ devices into machine learning tasks. Leveraging the entanglement benefits of tensor networks, we propose a hybrid quantum-classical classification model based on branching multi-scale entanglement renormalization ansatz (BMERA). This model enhances its ability to approximate nonlinear functions through qubit encoding and an optimized circuit structure. Additionally, the proposed HBMERA model achieves a shallower circuit depth by shifting some computational complexity from quantum devices to classical neural networks, making it more compatible with NISQ devices. Simulation results demonstrate that the BMERA classification model achieves higher classification performance in classical and quantum data classification tasks and exhibits robustness to depolarization noise. However, the accuracy of the BMERA model is lower than that of classical neural networks and TN models. This is mainly because the architecture and optimization methods of classification models have become increasingly mature and sophisticated after years of development. In contrast, quantum computers face limitations in terms of qubit, circuit depth, and error correction. These limitations necessitate preprocessing operations, such as dimensionality reduction of classical data, before executing the operation, which constrains the potential for further improving classification accuracy.

With advancements in quantum computers regarding scale and fault tolerance, these limitations will be greatly alleviated, potentially giving quantum models a competitive edge. For highly complex tasks, quantum models can more effectively capture global features and intricate relationships within the data, representing complex functions that are challenging for classical neural networks. This capability stems from the utilization of quantum superposition and entangled states, which may enable quantum neural networks to achieve higher accuracy in certain tasks. Currently, research on quantum classification models based on tensor network structures is in its early stages. The framework and architecture of quantum models require further optimization, which is an important direction for our future research. As the field progresses, we anticipate that improvements in quantum model design will lead to enhanced performance and new capabilities in machine learning.

LaTeX formats citations and references automatically using the bibliography records in your .bib file, which you can edit via the project menu. Use the cite command for an inline citation, e.g.32.

For data citations of datasets uploaded to e.g. figshare, please use the [SPSVERBc1SPS] option in the bib entry to specify the platform and the link, as in the [SPSVERBc2SPS] example in the sample bibliography file.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Open Fund of Advanced Cryptography and System Security Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province (Grant No. SKLACSS-202108), Scientific Research Fund of Zaozhuang University (No.102061901), Shandong Province College Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program Project (S202310904040).

Author contributions

Y.-Y.H. wrote the manuscript and conducted the experiment(s), L.J. conceived the experiment(s), X.T. analysed the results, X.-Y.L. reviewed the manuscript.

Data availability

Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files. Codes will be made available on request.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Rebentrost P Mohseni M Lloyd S Quantum support vector machine for big data classification Phys. Rev. Lett. 2014 113 130503 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.130503 25302877
Rebentrost, P., Mohseni, M. & Lloyd, S. Quantum support vector machine for big data classification. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 130503 (2014).25302877
2. Schuld M Killoran N Quantum machine learning in feature hilbert spaces Phys. Rev. Lett. 2019 122 040504 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.040504 30768345
Schuld, M. & Killoran, N. Quantum machine learning in feature hilbert spaces. Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 040504 (2019).30768345
3. Wang Y Lin K-Y Cheng S Li L Variational quantum extreme learning machine Neurocomputing 2022 512 83 99 10.1016/j.neucom.2022.09.068
Wang, Y., Lin, K.-Y., Cheng, S. & Li, L. Variational quantum extreme learning machine. Neurocomputing 512, 83–99 (2022).
4. Wang Y Wang Y Chen C Jiang R Huang W Development of variational quantum deep neural networks for image recognition Neurocomputing 2022 501 566 582 10.1016/j.neucom.2022.06.010
Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Chen, C., Jiang, R. & Huang, W. Development of variational quantum deep neural networks for image recognition. Neurocomputing 501, 566–582 (2022).
5. Chen Y Wang C Guo H Gao X Wu J Accelerating spiking neural networks using quantum algorithm with high success probability and high calculation accuracy Neurocomputing 2022 493 435 444 10.1016/j.neucom.2022.02.004
Chen, Y., Wang, C., Guo, H., Gao, X. & Wu, J. Accelerating spiking neural networks using quantum algorithm with high success probability and high calculation accuracy. Neurocomputing 493, 435–444 (2022).
6. Martín-Guerrero JD Lamata L Quantum machine learning: A tutorial Neurocomputing 2022 470 457 461 10.1016/j.neucom.2021.02.102
Martín-Guerrero, J. D. & Lamata, L. Quantum machine learning: A tutorial. Neurocomputing 470, 457–461 (2022).
7. Huang R Tan X Xu Q Variational quantum tensor networks classifiers Neurocomputing 2021 452 89 98 10.1016/j.neucom.2021.04.074
Huang, R., Tan, X. & Xu, Q. Variational quantum tensor networks classifiers. Neurocomputing 452, 89–98 (2021).
8. Cohen, N., Sharir, O. & Shashua, A. On the expressive power of deep learning: A tensor analysis. In Conference on learning theory, 698–728 (PMLR, 2016).
9. Stoudenmire E Schwab DJ Supervised learning with tensor networks Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2016 29 4799
Stoudenmire, E. & Schwab, D. J. Supervised learning with tensor networks. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 29, 4799 (2016).
10. Wall ML Abernathy MR Quiroz G Generative machine learning with tensor networks: Benchmarks on near-term quantum computers Phys. Rev. Res. 2021 3 023010 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.023010
Wall, M. L., Abernathy, M. R. & Quiroz, G. Generative machine learning with tensor networks: Benchmarks on near-term quantum computers. Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 023010 (2021).
11. Cheng S Wang L Xiang T Zhang P Tree tensor networks for generative modeling Phys. Rev. B 2019 99 155131 10.1103/PhysRevB.99.155131
Cheng, S., Wang, L., Xiang, T. & Zhang, P. Tree tensor networks for generative modeling. Phys. Rev. B 99, 155131 (2019).
12. Benedetti M A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits npj Quantum Inf. 2019 5 1 9 10.1038/s41534-019-0157-8
Benedetti, M. et al. A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits. npj Quantum Inf. 5, 1–9 (2019).
13. Grant E Hierarchical quantum classifiers npj Quantum Inf. 2018 4 1 8 10.1038/s41534-018-0116-9
Grant, E. et al. Hierarchical quantum classifiers. npj Quantum Inf. 4, 1–8 (2018).
14. Pesah A Absence of barren plateaus in quantum convolutional neural networks Phys. Rev. X 2021 11 041011
Pesah, A. et al. Absence of barren plateaus in quantum convolutional neural networks. Phys. Rev. X 11, 041011 (2021).
15. Vidal G Class of quantum many-body states that can be efficiently simulated Phys. Rev. Lett. 2008 101 110501 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.110501 18851269
Vidal, G. Class of quantum many-body states that can be efficiently simulated. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 110501 (2008).18851269
16. Broughton, M. et al. Tensorflow quantum: A software framework for quantum machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.02989 (2020).
17. Verdon, G., Pye, J. & Broughton, M. A universal training algorithm for quantum deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.09729 (2018).
18. Romero J Aspuru-Guzik A Variational quantum generators: Generative adversarial quantum machine learning for continuous distributions Adv. Quantum Technol. 2021 4 2000003 10.1002/qute.202000003
Romero, J. & Aspuru-Guzik, A. Variational quantum generators: Generative adversarial quantum machine learning for continuous distributions. Adv. Quantum Technol. 4, 2000003 (2021).
19. Skolik A McClean JR Mohseni M van der Smagt P Leib M Layerwise learning for quantum neural networks Quantum Mach. Intell. 2021 3 1 11 10.1007/s42484-020-00036-4
Skolik, A., McClean, J. R., Mohseni, M., van der Smagt, P. & Leib, M. Layerwise learning for quantum neural networks. Quantum Mach. Intell. 3, 1–11 (2021).
20. MacCormack I Delaney C Galda A Narang P Branching quantum convolutional neural networks: A variational ansatz with mid-circuit measurements Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 2021 4 1 013117
MacCormack, I., Delaney, C., Galda, A. & Narang, P. Branching quantum convolutional neural networks: A variational ansatz with mid-circuit measurements. Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 4(1), 013117 (2021).
21. Li W Deng D-L Recent advances for quantum classifiers Sci. China Physi. Mech. Astron. 2022 65 220301 10.1007/s11433-021-1793-6
Li, W. & Deng, D.-L. Recent advances for quantum classifiers. Sci. China Physi. Mech. Astron. 65, 220301 (2022).
22. Cong I Choi S Lukin MD Quantum convolutional neural networks Nat. Phys. 2019 15 1273 1278 10.1038/s41567-019-0648-8
Cong, I., Choi, S. & Lukin, M. D. Quantum convolutional neural networks. Nat. Phys. 15, 1273–1278 (2019).
23. Harrow AW Napp JC Low-depth gradient measurements can improve convergence in variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms Phys. Rev. Lett. 2021 126 140502 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.140502 33891469
Harrow, A. W. & Napp, J. C. Low-depth gradient measurements can improve convergence in variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms. Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 140502 (2021).33891469
24. Schuld M Bergholm V Gogolin C Izaac J Killoran N Evaluating analytic gradients on quantum hardware Phys. Rev. A 2019 99 032331 10.1103/PhysRevA.99.032331
Schuld, M., Bergholm, V., Gogolin, C., Izaac, J. & Killoran, N. Evaluating analytic gradients on quantum hardware. Phys. Rev. A 99, 032331 (2019).
25. Hubregtsen T Pichlmeier J Stecher P Bertels K Evaluation of parameterized quantum circuits: On the relation between classification accuracy, expressibility, and entangling capability Quantum Mach. Intell. 2021 3 1 19 10.1007/s42484-021-00038-w
Hubregtsen, T., Pichlmeier, J., Stecher, P. & Bertels, K. Evaluation of parameterized quantum circuits: On the relation between classification accuracy, expressibility, and entangling capability. Quantum Mach. Intell. 3, 1–19 (2021).
26. Sim S Johnson PD Aspuru-Guzik A Expressibility and entangling capability of parameterized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum-classical algorithms Adv. Quantum Technol. 2019 2 1900070 10.1002/qute.201900070
Sim, S., Johnson, P. D. & Aspuru-Guzik, A. Expressibility and entangling capability of parameterized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum-classical algorithms. Adv. Quantum Technol. 2, 1900070 (2019).
27. Peruzzo A A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor Nat. Commun. 2014 5 1 7 10.1038/ncomms5213
Peruzzo, A. et al. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nat. Commun. 5, 1–7 (2014).
28. Kingma, D. P. & Ba, J. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014).
29. Liu D Machine learning by unitary tensor network of hierarchical tree structure New J. Phys. 2019 21 073059 10.1088/1367-2630/ab31ef
Liu, D. et al. Machine learning by unitary tensor network of hierarchical tree structure. New J. Phys. 21, 073059 (2019).
30. Meng Y-M Zhang J Zhang P Gao C Ran S-J Residual matrix product state for machine learning SciPost Phys. 2023 14 142 10.21468/SciPostPhys.14.6.142
Meng, Y.-M., Zhang, J., Zhang, P., Gao, C. & Ran, S.-J. Residual matrix product state for machine learning. SciPost Phys. 14, 142 (2023).
31. Cheng S Wang L Zhang P Supervised learning with projected entangled pair states Phys. Rev. B 2021 103 125117 10.1103/PhysRevB.103.125117
Cheng, S., Wang, L. & Zhang, P. Supervised learning with projected entangled pair states. Phys. Rev. B 103, 125117 (2021).
32. Hao, Z., AghaKouchak, A., Nakhjiri, N. & Farahmand, A. Global integrated drought monitoring and prediction system (GIDMaPS) data sets. figshare10.6084/m9.figshare.853801 (2014).
