Bridging Quantum Computing Paradigms toward Semiconductor Yield: A Controlled CV-versus-DV Comparison on Wafer-Map Defect Classification
2026-07-01 • Machine Learning
Machine Learning
AI summaryⓘ
The authors compare two types of quantum neural networks (QNNs)—continuous-variable (CV) and discrete-variable (DV)—to classify defects on semiconductor wafers. Using a setup where only the quantum part changes, they find CV-QNNs perform better, especially at telling apart similar defect types. They show the CV advantage comes from how the information is encoded and processed, not just quantum size or training issues. Although both are still behind classical methods, their work highlights where CV quantum networks might become useful as technology improves.
Quantum Neural NetworksContinuous-Variable Quantum ComputingDiscrete-Variable Quantum ComputingWafer Defect ClassificationConvolutional Neural NetworksQumodesQubitsPhase-Space EncodingFock SpaceQuantum Hardware
Authors
Yeonhong Kim, Jonghyeok Im, Monu Nath Baitha, Kyoungsik Kim
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.