ArticleScientific reports2025
A quantum machine learning-based predictive analysis of CERN collision events.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the advent of quantum computing, researchers have explored the applicability and any potential advantages of quantum algorithms. This study investigates the application of Quantum Machine Learning (QML) models for regression tasks. Utilizing two distinct CERN datasets (Dielectron events and Proton collision), we investigate prediction accuracy using two QML algorithms, namely Quantum Neural Network (QNN) and Quantum Long Short-Term Memory (QLSTM). We also discuss the comparative analysis and computational efficiency of QNN and QLSTM compared to classical regression methods. The results show that while the two QML models gave comparable accuracy scores to some of the classical models, the best scores were still achieved by some of the more advanced classical algorithms such as CatBoost. Further analysis of the QNN and QLSTM algorithms using multiple ansätz designs showed that increased circuit complexity did not yield substantial improvements in prediction accuracy. These findings suggest that QML models, especially QLSTM with simpler ansätz designs, offer a promising approach for modeling high-energy physics data, and highlight the importance of balancing circuit complexity with performance. The study also underscores the need for further evaluation of these algorithms on quantum hardware to better understand real-world applicability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.