Bridging Quantum Computing Paradigms toward Semiconductor Yield: A Controlled CV-versus-DV Comparison on Wafer-Map Defect Classification
📄 arXiv:2607.00961 · 📥 PDF · 2026-07-01 · quant-ph
Authors: Yeonhong Kim [arXiv · scholar] , Jonghyeok Im [arXiv · scholar] , Monu Nath Baitha [arXiv · scholar] , Kyoungsik Kim [arXiv · scholar]
🕰 Orloj analysis
Tento článek porovnává kvantové neuronové sítě s kontinuálními (CV) a diskrétními (DV) proměnnými pro klasifikaci defektů na polovodičových deskách. Zjistili, že CV sítě konzistentně překonávají DV sítě, zejména u jemných prostorových rozlišení, ačkoliv obě zůstávají pod klasickým výkonem.
💡 Práce poskytuje cenné srovnání dvou hlavních kvantových paradigmat v praktické aplikaci, což je užitečné pro budoucí vývoj QNN, ale nepřináší zásadní teoretický průlom.
✓ falsifiable, modest_claims, controlled_experiment
⚠ limited_scale_of_quantum_heads, performance_below_classical_baseline, hardware_noise_impact_on_DV
📄 Abstract
Realizing quantum neural networks (QNNs) in industry requires knowing which quantum computing paradigm suits which task. Motivated by AI accelerators and high-bandwidth memory, where die stacking makes wafer-level defect screening central to yield, we study WM-811K wafer-map defect classification (eight classes), comparing the dominant paradigms, continuous-variable (CV) and discrete-variable (DV), under controlled conditions. To isolate the quantum circuit as the sole variable, a shared convolutional backbone (~4.3M parameters) feeds interchangeable heads (classical dense, CV-QNN, or DV-QNN) as the only structural difference; each quantum head is scaled over three sizes (3, 4, 8 qumodes/qubits). The CV head consistently outperforms the DV head: at four qumodes/qubits it reaches 79.7 +/- 1.8% accuracy versus 61.6 +/- 1.4%, a non-overlapping 18-point gap. The advantage is sharpest on the spatially localized Edge-Loc class, easily confused with Scratch, which CV recovers with recall 0.66 +/- 0.06 while DV fails at every size (<=0.05), showing the structured CV layer better captures fine spatial distinctions between defect types. Training curves show the DV limitation is a representational-capacity ceiling, not an optimization failure; at the Fock cutoff used here (d = 2) the CV advantage reflects two intrinsic properties, a structured, neural-network-analogue layer and continuous phase-space encoding, not Hilbert-space dimensionality. On IBM hardware, DV accuracy holds at shallow depth, degrading only at the deepest circuit. Both quantum heads remain below the classical baseline (85.0%), but the controlled setting isolates where a structured head already helps and, as noise and scale improve, which paradigm can deliver practical advantage.