The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 18 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits
Open accessAbstract
Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms provide ways to use noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers for practical applications. Expanding the portfolio of such techniques, we propose a quantum circuit learning algorithm that can be used to assist the characterization of quantum devices and to train shallow circuits for generative tasks. The procedure leverages quantum hardware capabilities to its fullest extent by using native gates and their qubit connectivity. We demonstrate that our approach can learn an optimal preparation of the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger states, also known as “cat states”. We further demonstrate that our approach can efficiently prepare approximate representations of coherent thermal states, wave functions that encode Boltzmann probabilities in their amplitudes. Finally, complementing proposals to characterize the power or usefulness of near-term quantum devices, such as IBM’s quantum volume, we provide a new hardware-independent metric called the qBAS score. It is based on the performance yield in a specific sampling task on one of the canonical machine learning data sets known as Bars and Stripes. We show how entanglement is a key ingredient in encoding the patterns of this data set; an ideal benchmark for testing hardware starting at four qubits and up. We provide experimental results and evaluation of this metric to probe the trade off between several architectural circuit designs and circuit depths on an ion-trap quantum computer.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper proposes data-driven quantum circuit learning (DDQCL), a hybrid quantum-classical generative modeling framework that uses Born-rule probabilities from shallow quantum circuits and introduces the qBAS score for benchmarking NISQ/hybrid systems. It demonstrates learning GHZ/cat-state preparations, coherent thermal states, and Bars-and-Stripes patterns in simulations and on an ion-trap quantum computer.
Key findings
- DDQCL learned GHZ-like state preparation recipes from classical samples: 3- and 5-qubit instances yielded one recipe, while 4- and 6-qubit instances yielded another; parameters converged close to π/2, and the recipes generalized to larger odd and even qubit numbers.
- For coherent thermal states with N = 5 qubits, deeper circuits (L = 3) consistently outperformed shallower circuits (L = 2 and L = 1) as the task became harder by lowering temperature from 2T_c to T_c to T_c/1.5; the inverse Bethe approximation performed extremely well in the easy task, matched L = 3 in the intermediate task, and underperformed in the difficult task.
- For BAS(2, 2), the minimum entanglement entropy of any state encoding the data set is S_BAS(2,2) = 1.25163 and the maximum is S_BAS(2,2) = 1.79248; DDQCL found a representation with S_BAS(2,2) = 1.69989. All-to-all topology outperformed sparse topologies, and qBAS(2, 2) was computed with N_reads = 15 samples.
- The qBAS score is an F1-based, hardware-independent metric on Bars and Stripes; example readout requirements include N_reads = 15 for (2, 2), 120 for (4, 4), and 16,780 for (10, 10).
Methods
- DDQCL maps binary data vectors to computational-basis states of an N-qubit circuit. The circuit uses alternating layers of arbitrary single-qubit rotations and Mølmer-Sørensen XX entangling gates; Born’s rule gives P_θ(x) = |⟨x|ψ(θ)⟩|². Training minimizes a clipped negative log-likelihood C_nll(θ) = −(1/D) Σ ln(max(ε, P_θ(x^(d)))) using gradient-free particle swarm optimization, with 1000 measurements per estimation.
- Data sets are synthetic: zero-temperature ferromagnet/GHZ, random thermal Boltzmann distributions with N = 5 qubits (and N = 6 in supplementary), and BAS(2, 2). Numerical experiments use 1000 data points sampled exactly from these distributions, 25 random initializations, and bootstrapping for error bars. Simulations used QuTiP2; experiments ran on an ion-trap quantum computer at the University of Maryland.
- The qBAS(n, m) score is the harmonic mean of precision and recall on BAS patterns, with N_reads = N_BAS(n,m) H_{N_BAS(n,m)}. The paper compares all-to-all, chain, and star entangling topologies and different layer counts.
Limitations
- The paper states that the negative log-likelihood cost becomes expensive to estimate as system size increases, that alternative cost functions are only preliminary, that optimizing N_reads is left for future work, and that KL divergence may become undefined for large n × m. It also notes simulations assumed noiseless hardware, deeper circuits did not always improve performance due to optimization/local optima, and the experimental L = 4 improvement was smaller than theoretical because the quantum computer accumulated errors in the deeper circuit.
- Evident from the text: experimental validation is limited to small instances—GHZ training up to 6 qubits, thermal states at N = 5, and BAS(2, 2) on 4 qubits—and qBAS experiments were performed on a single ion-trap device. The GHZ recipe extraction also relied on human expert inspection and rounding of learned parameters.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
41 Own interpretation · 23 Own result · 12 No basis given · 10 Not checked yet · 1 Supported so far
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The recipes obtained are summarized in Fig. 3 and were verified for larger number of qubits, both odd and even.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Deeper circuits such as L = 3 (purple pentagons) consistently outperformed shallower circuits such as L = 2 (red circles) and L = 1 (yellow triangles).”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
plaindirectn = 5- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, deeper circuits do not always provide significant improvements, as it is the case for all-to-all L = 4 (dark green circles) versus all-to-all L = 2 (orange circles).”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, it is reassuring that DDQCL obtained circuits for cat state preparation starting from samples of a classical distribution.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is an important observation, since we know, based on our empirical results, that (i) single layer circuits with no entangling gates severely underperform in producing the output state probability distribution that is close to the target data set”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in Fig. 3, the learning process unveiled that these converge to the same value.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“DDQCL produced approximate recipes of this kind in some of the test cases for 3 and 4 qubits when using a single entangling layer with chain topology.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and (ii) when inspecting the parameters learned for circuits with all-to-all topology with L = 2 layers, we found that most of the XX gates reached their maximum entangling setting.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This became more evident as we went from easy learning tasks (Fig. 4a) to hard learning tasks (Fig. 4c).”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
plaincorrelationaln = 5- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We demonstrate that our approach can learn an optimal preparation of the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger states, also known as “cat states”.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > Abstract
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also note that one of the quantum representations of BAS(2, 2) found by DDQCL reached a remarkable value of S BAS(2,2) = 1.69989 (see Fig. S3 in the Supplementary Material).”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We further demonstrate that our approach can efficiently prepare approximate representations of coherent thermal states, wave functions that encode Boltzmann probabilities in their amplitudes.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > Abstract
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using a layer of single qubit rotations followed by an entangling layer with the all-to-all topology, DDQCL yielded many degenerate preparations of GHZ-like states differing only by a relative phase.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All parameters attained values very close to π 2 .”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > Bootstrapping analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that the theoretical improvement for using L = 4 is larger than that observed experimentally in the ion trap.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A significant improvement is obtained with L = 2, where most of the parameters for XX gates have been learned to their maximum entangling value.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > Bootstrapping analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The score is also sensitive to the choice of topology as shown by the drop in performance of star compared with all-toall when the same number of layers L = 2 is used.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
plaindirectn = 15- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean-field-like circuit L = 1 (green crosses) severely underperforms.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > Bootstrapping analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A significant improvement is obtained with L = 2, where most of the parameters for XX gates have been learned to their maximum entangling value.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > Bootstrapping analysis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, we trained circuits to prepare approximations of thermal states.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“We choose the ion trap because of its full connectivity among qubits 37 which allows us to study several circuit layouts on the same device.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [37] Linke, N. M. et al. Experimental comparison of two quantum computing architectures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 201618020 (2017). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This shows the power of our framework, in that DDQCL is capable of handling useful quantum states that are rich in entanglement.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We show how entanglement is a key ingredient in encoding the patterns of this data set; an ideal benchmark for testing hardware starting at four qubits and up.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in the table, the number of readouts required to determine qBAS(n, m) are within experimental capabilities of current NISQ devices.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > The learning pipeline
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: For setting N_reads, the model distribution is equal to the target distribution P_BAS(n,m).
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The upside is that learning can be successful even in the presence of such systematic errors.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The latter observation comes from the fact that the median performance of the inverse Bethe approximation has very large confidence intervals.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, it can be used to benchmark the performance of the components of the hybrid quantum-classical system.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > The learning pipeline
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By using an alternative decomposition, namely U = R x R z R x , we could apply commutation rules with XX gates and obtain a reduction to 2N parameters in all odd layers.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > Simulation of quantum circuits in silico
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our work differs in that Born's rule is naturally implemented by a quantum circuit executed on a NISQ hardware.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > INTRODUCTION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This illustrates the power of Born machines 24 to approximate Boltzmann machines 55 when the data require thermal-like features.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [24] Cheng, S., Chen, J. & Wang, L. Information perspective to probabilistic modeling: Boltzmann machines versus born machines. Entropy 20, 583 (2018). source
- Not checked yetcites [55] Ackley, D. H., Hinton, G. E. & Sejnowski, T. J. A learning algorithm for boltzmann machines. Cogn. Sci. 9, 147–169 (1985). source
plainconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The success of this approach is evidenced by the results on three different data sets.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These observations indicate that entanglement is a key resource for learning the BAS data set.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > Bootstrapping analysis
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The all-to-all topology (orange circles) significantly outperform all the others as it has more expressive power.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > Bootstrapping analysis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Every other layer of arbitrary single qubit operations would in general require 3N parameters, where N is the number of qubits.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > Simulation of quantum circuits in silico
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The F 1 score is a useful measure for the quality of information retrieval and classification algorithms, but for our purposes it has a caveat: the dependence of r on the total number of measurements.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > The learning pipeline
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Assuming a perfect model distribution P BAS(n,m) = 1/ N BAS(n,m) , the expected number of measurements to obtain a value of r = 1.0 can be estimated using the famous coupon collector's problem.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > The learning pipeline
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: For setting N_reads, the model distribution is equal to the target distribution P_BAS(n,m).
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that for L = 2 the choice of topology becomes a key factor for improving the performance.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > Bootstrapping analysis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“N BASðn;mÞ ¼ 2 n þ 2 m À 2:(2)”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, this would not be robust in terms of scalability; as n × m becomes large, it is expected that the KL divergence is frequently undefined”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > The learning pipeline
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is because the quantum computer accumulated errors while executing the deeper circuit.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 32
- It may state two separate claims as one. 20
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“For example, learning probabilistic generative models is in many cases an intractable task, and quantum-assisted algorithms have been proposed for both gate-based 17,18 and quantum annealing devices.[19][20][21][22][23]”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17] Nathan Wiebe, K. M. S. & Kapoor, A. Quantum deep learning. Preprint at arXiv:1412.3489 (2015).
- Supportedcites [18] Kieferová, M. & Wiebe, N. Tomography and generative training with quantum boltzmann machines. Phys. Rev. A 96, 062327 (2017). source
In “Tomography and Generative Data Modeling via Quantum Boltzmann Training” (p. 3), the paper says the training objective is unlikely to be generically computable because calculating a required term is #P-hard. This supports the qualified claim that learning probabilistic generative models can be intractable, rather than claiming that every such model is hard to train. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Not checked yetcites [19][20][21][22][23]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the maximum value that a quantum representation of BAS(2, 2) can reach is S BAS(2,2) = 1.79248, which happens to be the maximum entanglement entropy known for any four-qubit state 56 (see also Fig. S5 and the corresponding Section in the Supplementary Material).”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [56] Higuchi, A. & Sudbery, A. W. How entangled can two couples get? Phys. Lett. A 273, 213–217 (2000). source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Instances of 3 and 5 qubits yielded a recipe, while instances of 4 and 6 qubit yielded another recipe.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The minimum value of entanglement entropy that any such state can have is S BAS(2,2) = 1.25163.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in Fig. 4, the inverse Bethe approximation (green bar) performed extremely well in the easy task (a), matched the L = 3 quantum circuit in the intermediate task (b), and underperformed on the difficult task (c).”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The score is sensitive to the depth of the circuit as shown by the performance improvement of L = 4 compared with L = 2 in the star topology.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
plaindirectn = 15- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All the topologies achieve a lower median KL divergence and the confidence intervals shrink.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > Bootstrapping analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, tapping into the real power of near-term quantum devices and approximate algorithms implementable on them, we designed a task-specific performance estimator based on a canonical data set.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The chain topology (purple squares) performs slightly better than the star topology (red stars) even though they have the same number of parameters.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > Bootstrapping analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To summarize, first, we learned a GHZ state preparation recipe for an ion trap quantum computer.Minimal intervention by a human expert allowed to generalize the recipe to any number of qubits.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > DISCUSSION
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We note that a more general performance indicator than qBAS (n, m) score is indeed the KL divergence, D KL [P BAS(n,m) |P θ ].”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > The learning pipeline
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We start by noting that the four-qubit cat state, whose rich entangled nature makes it ideal for studying decoherence and decay of quantum information, 49,51 has entanglement entropy S GHZ = 1.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [49] Monz, T. et al. 14-qubit entanglement: creation and coherence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 130506 (2011). source
- Not checked yetcites [51] Ozaeta, A. & McMahon, P. L. Decoherence of up to 8-qubit entangled states in a 16-qubit superconducting quantum processor. Quantum Sci. Technol. 4, 025015 (2019). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“DDQCL prepares a quantum state without the assumption of an underlying Boltzmann distribution, while the inverse Bethe approximation infers the parameters with such assumption.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In all these cases, the qBAS score can still be computed and the number of measurements N reads necessary for obtaining a robust estimate continues to remain relatively small to be practical for intermediate size n × m.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > The learning pipeline
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: For setting N_reads, the model distribution is equal to the target distribution P_BAS(n,m).
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It would be much more difficult to analyze parameters found with noisy hardware, as DDQCL can learn to compensate certain types of noise, e.g., systematic parameter offsets, in non-trivial ways.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Other classical methods based on machine learning and Markov Chain Monte Carlo, such as the Boltzmann machine, 55 could achieve higher accuracy by requiring more computational resources than the inverse Bethe approximation used here.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [55] Ackley, D. H., Hinton, G. E. & Sejnowski, T. J. A learning algorithm for boltzmann machines. Cogn. Sci. 9, 147–169 (1985). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms, such as the variational quantum eigensolver 2,3 (VQE) and the quantum approximate optimization algorithm 4,5 (QAOA), provide ways to use NISQ computers for practical applications.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Peruzzo, A. et al. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nat. Commun. 5, 4213 EP (2014). source
- Not checked yetcites [3] McClean, J. R., Romero, J., Babbush, R. & Aspuru-Guzik, A. The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms. New J. Phys. 18, 023023 (2016). source
- Not checked yetcites [4] Edward Farhi, S. G. & Goldstone, J. A. quantum approximate optimization algorithm. Preprint at arXiv:1411.4028 (2014).
- Not checked yetcites [5] Hadfield, S. et al. From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to a quantum alternating operator ansatz. Algorithms 12, 34 (2019). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Although optimization tasks offer a great niche of applications, probabilistic tasks involving sampling have most of the potential to prove quantum advantage in the near-term.[14][15][16]”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14][15][16]
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the error in the inverse Bethe approximation is expected to go to zero with system size, and only above the reference temperature T c (see Section “Methods” for details).”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Methods
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, we can slightly reduce the number of parameter without changing the expressive power of the circuit.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > Simulation of quantum circuits in silico
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, the score depends on the classical resources, hyperparameters, and various design choices, making it a good choice for the assessment of the hybrid system as a whole.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > INTRODUCTION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, any miscalibration or environmental noise will affect this single performance number, enabling comparison between different devices or across different generations of the same device.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > INTRODUCTION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, one may use the score to compare classical resources of the hybrid system (e.g., different optimizers).”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Once the number of layers and topology of entangling gates is fixed, the quantum circuits described above provide a template; by adjusting the parameters we can implement a small subset of the unitaries that are in principle allowed in the Hilbert space.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > Gradient-free optimization
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Previous implementations of Born machines [25][26][27][28] often relied on the construction of tensor networks and their efficient manipulation through graphical-processing units.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25][26][27][28]
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The total number of parameters per entangling layer depends on the chosen topology: all is a fully-connected graph and has N(N -1)/2 parameters, chain is a one-dimensional nearest neighbor graph with N -1 parameters, and star is a star-shaped graph with N-1 parameters.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > Simulation of quantum circuits in silico
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this work, we presented a data-driven quantum circuit learning algorithm (DDQCL) as a framework that can assist in the characterization of NISQ devices and to implement simple generative models.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although we compared circuits implemented on the same ion trap hardware, the score may be used to compare different device generations or even completely different architectures (e.g., superconductor-based versus atomic-based).”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Bars and stripes BAS 47 is a canonical machine learning data set for testing generative models.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [47] MacKay, D. J. C. Information Theory, Inference and Learning Algorithms. (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2002).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The only way to reproduce the zero-temperature ferromagnet distribution in our setting is to implement a unitary transformation that prepares a GHZ-like state.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Errors in the device will affect this single performance measure, the qBAS score, which can be used to compare different device generations, or completely different architectures.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that the number of measurements needed to obtain an unbiased estimate of the relevant probabilities may not scale favorably with the number of qubits N.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > The learning pipeline
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is not an example of compilation, but rather an illustration of how simple classical probability distributions can guide the synthesis of interesting non-trivial quantum states.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > DISCUSSION
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The zero-temperature ferromagnet distribution is equivalent to assigning 1/2 probability to both |0…0〉 and |1…1〉 states of the computational basis.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > GHZ state preparation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, our work does not assume a Boltzmann distribution and therefore does not require a specific sampling beyond Born's rule.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > INTRODUCTION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The qBAS score can also be used to benchmark the typical performance of optimizers used in hybrid quantum-classical systems.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > DISCUSSION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Depending on the level or type of noise in the system, the same algorithm could lead to a different circuit fulfilling the same probability distribution as that of the data.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > DISCUSSION
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The bars and stripes data is easy to generate, visualize and verify classically, while modeling it still requires significant quantum resources in the form of entanglement.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, implementing a shallow circuit that can uniformly sample such data is hard; we will show that some candidate solutions require large amount of entanglement.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > INTRODUCTION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our approach has the bidirectional capability of using NISQ devices for machine learning, and machine learning for the characterization of NISQ devices.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this paper, we propose the qBAS score, a complementary metric designed for benchmarking hybrid quantum-classical systems.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > INTRODUCTION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this paper, we used the negative log-likelihood which quickly becomes expensive to estimate as the size of the system increases.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, complementing proposals to characterize the power or usefulness of near-term quantum devices, such as IBM's quantum volume, we provide a new hardware-independent metric called the qBAS score.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The total number of parameters per entangling layer depends on the chosen topology: all is a fully-connected graph and has N(N -1)/2 parameters, chain is a one-dimensional nearest neighbor graph with N -1 parameters, and star is a star-shaped graph with N-1 parameters.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > Simulation of quantum circuits in silico
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The score can be computed in any of the NISQ architectures available to date.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“DDQCL is a modular framework and its performance will ultimately depend on the choices made for such modules.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The total number of parameters per entangling layer depends on the chosen topology: all is a fully-connected graph and has N(N -1)/2 parameters, chain is a one-dimensional nearest neighbor graph with N -1 parameters, and star is a star-shaped graph with N-1 parameters.”
§ A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits > Simulation of quantum circuits in silico
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The data vectors in the data set D are independent and identically distributed random vectors.
“The data set D ¼ ðx ð1Þ ; ; x ðDÞ Þ is a collection of D independent and identically distributed random vectors.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
For setting N_reads, the model distribution is equal to the target distribution P_BAS(n,m).
“Assuming a perfect model distribution P BAS(n,m) = 1/ N BAS(n,m) , the expected number of measurements to obtain a value of r = 1.0 can be estimated using the famous coupon collector's problem.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
For simulations in silico, perfect gate fidelities and error-free measurements are assumed.
“For the simulations in silico, we also assume perfect gate fidelities and error-free measurements.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In the current ion trap experimental setup, arbitrary single-qubit rotations and Mølmer-Sørensen XX entangling gates involving any two qubits can be performed.
“In the current experimental setup, we can perform arbitrary single qubit rotations and Mølmer-Sørensen XX entangling gates involving any two qubits.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Benedetti et al. [10] proposed the qBAS score metric for benchmarking the shallow quantum-classical hybrid systems using synthetic data set.”
From QASMBench: A Low-Level Quantum Benchmark Suite for NISQ Evaluation and Simulation (2023) · cites this paper as [10]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Quantum autoencoders have seen experimental implementation on quantum hardware [168], and will likely be an important primitive in QML.”
From Variational quantum algorithms (2021) · cites this paper as [168]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Citations
Cites
Kennedy, J., & Eberhart, R. (2002) · Proceedings of ICNN'95 - International Conference on Neural Networks · doi:10.1109/icnn.1995.488968 · Cited by 58,192
On Information and Sufficiency
Kullback, S., & Leibler, R. A. (1951) · The Annals of Mathematical Statistics · doi:10.1214/aoms/1177729694 · Cited by 20,193
(2016) · Cited by 11,679
A modified particle swarm optimizer
Shi, Y., & Eberhart, R. C. (2002) · IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC) · doi:10.1109/icec.1998.699146 · Cited by 11,082
Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond
Preskill, J. (2018) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79 · Cited by 8,830
Information theory, inference, and learning algorithms
(2004) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.41-5949 · Cited by 6,536
The Earth Mover's Distance as a Metric for Image Retrieval
Rubner, Y., Tomasi, C., & Guibas, L. (2000) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1023/a:1026543900054 · Cited by 5,547
Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms
(2004) · Kybernetes · doi:10.1108/03684920410534506 · Cited by 4,937
A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor
Peruzzo, A., McClean, J., Shadbolt, P., Yung, M.-H., Zhou, X.-Q., Love, P. J., Aspuru-Guzik, A., & O’Brien, J. L. (2014) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms5213 · Cited by 4,552 · cited 5×
“Figure 2 on the top left panel shows patterns belonging to BAS(2, 2), while the top central panel shows the remaining patterns.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialA learning algorithm for Boltzmann machines
Ackley, D. H., Hinton, G. E., & Sejnowski, T. J. (1985) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0901_7 · Cited by 3,402
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Monz, T. et al. 14-qubit entanglement: creation and coherence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 130506 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Variational quantum algorithms
Cerezo, M., Arrasmith, A., Babbush, R., Benjamin, S. C., Endo, S., Fujii, K., McClean, J. R., Mitarai, K., Yuan, X., Cincio, L., et al. (2021) · Nature Reviews Physics · doi:10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9 · Cited by 3,385
“[146], cat and coherent thermal states were generated experimentally in this way from specific classical data sets.”
BackgroundNoisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms
Bharti, K., Cervera-Lierta, A., Kyaw, T. H., Haug, T., Alperin-Lea, S., Anand, A., Degroote, M., Heimonen, H., Kottmann, J. S., Menke, T., et al. (2022) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.94.015004 · Cited by 2,231
Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models
Benedetti, M., Lloyd, E., Sack, S., & Fiorentini, M. (2019) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab4eb5 · Cited by 1,528
Self-citationHybrid Quantum-Classical Algorithms and Quantum Error Mitigation
Endo, S., Cai, Z., Benjamin, S. C., & Yuan, X. (2021) · Journal of the Physical Society of Japan · doi:10.7566/jpsj.90.032001 · Cited by 566
Variational Quantum Computation of Excited States
Higgott, O., Wang, D., & Brierley, S. (2019) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2019-07-01-156 · Cited by 463
Metadata
- Authors
- Benedetti, M., Garcia-Pintos, D., Perdomo, O., Leyton-Ortega, V., Nam, Y., & Perdomo-Ortiz, A.
- Affiliations
- Cambridge Quantum Computing (United Kingdom) (GB)
- Central Connecticut State University (US)
- IonQ (United States) (US)
- Venue
- npj Quantum Information
- Published
- 2019-05-27
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2056-6387 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2784994528
- Cited by
- 379
- References
- 71
- Citations by year
- 2026: 42 · 2025: 75 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 12
- FWCI
- 16.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- npj Quantum Information (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- RCUK | Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
- Cambridge Quantum Computing Limited
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Information and Cryptography
- Keywords
- quantum circuit learning, shallow quantum circuits, generative models, hybrid quantum-classical algorithms, quantum device characterization, GHZ states, Schrödinger cat states, thermal states, quantum volume, entanglement, ion trap quantum computer, qubit connectivity, benchmarking
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
