Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study evaluates four conditional energy-based forecasting architectures, including classical and hybrid quantum-classical models, through symmetric hyperparameter optimization across thirteen structured experiments. The findings reveal that none of the quantum architectures outperform the best classical baseline, with the fully quantum models performing significantly worse and the hybrid model showing no statistical advantage over classical counterparts. A power analysis suggests that while small advantages cannot be ruled out, the current sample size does not support the existence of a quantum advantage in time-series forecasting.
Quantum models fail to show any advantage over classical counterparts in time-series forecasting, challenging assumptions about their superiority.
In this study, we developed and evaluated four conditional energy-based forecasting architectures: a classical Gaussian-Bernoulli CRBM, a hybrid quantum-classical QCRBM, a full-register QQRBM, and a lag-feature QFeatureQRBM with complete derivations of their conditional distributions, Contrastive-Divergence gradients, and hybrid training, bridging the energy-based formulation and the implementation-level quantum computation. Unlike prior comparisons, our evaluation enforces symmetric hyperparameter optimisation: classical and quantum-specific hyperparameters receive an equally thorough grid search across thirteen structured experiments. We test on two data classes, a Gaussian-process dataset (GP) generated with real financial data and the input-driven NARMA-10 nonlinear benchmark. Across both regimes we find no systematic evidence of a quantum advantage at the available sample size: no quantum architecture improves on the best classical baseline. The fully quantum QQRBM and QFeatureQRBM are significantly worse, whereas the hybrid QCRBM is statistically indistinguishable from the strongest classical CRBM on both datasets. A power analysis bounds this null result: at n = 12 only medium-to-large effects are detectable, so small advantages cannot be excluded. An iso-parameter (matched-budget) comparison reaches the same conclusion: the classical CRBM is lowest at three of the four budgets and no CRBM-vs-QCRBM difference is significant at any budget.
