ArticleScientific reports2025
Carbon efficient quantum AI: an empirical study of ansätz design trade-offs in QNN and QLSTM models.
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
The rising environmental cost of deep learning has placed Green AI, which promotes focus on reducing the carbon footprint of AI, at the forefront of sustainable computing. In this study, we investigate Quantum Machine Learning (QML) as a novel and energy-efficient alternative by benchmarking two quantum models, the Quantum Neural Network (QNN) and Quantum Long Short-Term Memory (QLSTM), on the N-BaIoT anomaly detection dataset. Our first phase of experiments compares the QNN and QLSTM models using ten distinct quantum circuit designs (ansätze A1-A10). We systematically compare trade-offs between classification performance, model complexity, training time, and energy consumption. The results indicate that simpler QNN ansätze can achieve accuracy comparable to more complex ones while consuming significantly less energy and converging faster. In particular, QNN with ansatz A4 provided the optimal balance between performance and energy efficiency, consistently outperforming QLSTM across most metrics. A detailed energy breakdown confirmed GPU usage as the dominant source of power consumption, underscoring the importance of circuit-efficient quantum design. To contextualize QML's viability, we conducted a second phase of experiments comparing quantum models with three benchmark classical machine learning models: Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), and CatBoost. We find that the classical models demonstrated faster training times and lower energy consumption, highlighting and contrasting the maturity of algorithmic development that classical ML algorithms have already seen. Finally, we examined the energy implications of developing quantum models on actual quantum hardware. This third phase of experiments compared training on IBM Qiskit's emulation environment (running on GPU servers) versus execution on real IBM Quantum hardware. Highlighting the significant differences in execution time and energy footprint, extrapolated results indicate that quantum hardware still incurs higher energy costs. This suggests that further hardware-aware ansätz optimization and improvements in quantum infrastructure are essential to realizing carbon-efficient QML at scale.
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.