Hybrid Quantum-Inspired Intelligent Computing Model for Real-Time Optimization of Massive Heterogeneous Climate Datasets

Authors

  • Anirudha Gaikwad Department of Computer Applications, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Delhi-NCR Campus, Delhi- Meerut Road, Modinagar, Ghaziabad (U.P.), 201204, India
  • Atit Gaikwad SPM Polytechnic, Hotgi Road, Kumathe, Solapur, Maharashtra, 413224, India https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4488-9215
  • Shardul Singh Chauhan Department of Computer Applications, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Delhi-NCR Campus, Delhi- Meerut Road, Modinagar, Ghaziabad (U.P.), 201204, India https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0302-2806

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59461/ijdiic.v5i2.281

Keywords:

Quantum-inspired optimization, Climate data analytics, Variational algorithms, Energy-efficient deep learning, Hybrid quantum-classical computing

Abstract

The volume of climate observations is now growing faster than classical optimizers can process it. With petabyte-scale reanalysis archives and multi-source satellite streams in routine operation, the training budget of large climate models has become a genuine bottleneck for real-time forecasting. In this paper, we propose a hybrid quantum-inspired intelligent computing model (HQI-Opt) for fast and energy-efficient optimization of deep forecasting networks trained on heterogeneous climate tensors. The method combines a classical gradient branch, driven by a parameter-shift-style analytic estimator over a latitude-weighted loss, with a quantum-inspired branch that encodes the parameter state into an Ising/QUBO representation and applies a quantum rotation-gate mixing step modulated by an adiabatic schedule. A training loop with three concurrent branches is developed and evaluated on an ERA5 subset following the WeatherBench 2 protocol. The method is compared against six widely used optimizers: SGD with momentum, Adam, AdamW, LAMB, Lion, and Sophia. Across 69 variables and four lead times, HQI-Opt reaches the target latitude-weighted loss in approximately 43% fewer epochs; the training energy per run falls from 29.8 to 17.6 kWh, the associated carbon footprint is reduced by 41%, and the RMSE at the 3-day lead on geopotential height at 500 hPa improves from 140.8 to 137.3 m²/s². A convergence analysis is provided showing that the iterates approach a stationary point of the latitude-weighted loss as the annealing schedule decays. The results indicate that a classically simulated quantum-inspired update step, with no quantum hardware in the loop, is already a viable building block for real-time climate informatics pipelines.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

H. Hersbach et al., “The ERA5 global reanalysis,” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, vol. 146, no. 730, pp. 1999–2049, Jul. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803.

A. G. T. Nguyen, J. Brandstetter, A. Kapoor, J. K. Gupta, “ClimaX: a foundation model for weather and climate,” Proc. 40th Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. (ICML), pp. 25904–25938, 2023.

K. Bi, L. Xie, H. Zhang, X. Chen, X. Gu, and Q. Tian, “Accurate medium-range global weather forecasting with 3D neural networks,” Nature, vol. 619, no. 7970, pp. 533–538, Jul. 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06185-3.

R. Lam et al., “Learning skillful medium-range global weather forecasting,” Science, vol. 382, no. 6677, pp. 1416–1421, Dec. 2023, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adi2336.

T. Kurth et al., “FourCastNet: Accelerating Global High-Resolution Weather Forecasting Using Adaptive Fourier Neural Operators,” in Proceedings of the Platform for Advanced Scientific Computing Conference, Jun. 2023, pp. 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1145/3592979.3593412.

I. Price et al., “Probabilistic weather forecasting with machine learning,” Nature, vol. 637, no. 8044, pp. 84–90, Jan. 2025, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08252-9.

D. Kochkov et al., “Neural general circulation models for weather and climate,” Nature, vol. 632, no. 8027, pp. 1060–1066, Aug. 2024, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07744-y.

C. Bodnar et al., “A foundation model for the Earth system,” Nature, vol. 641, no. 8065, pp. 1180–1187, May 2025, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09005-y.

D. Patterson et al., “The Carbon Footprint of Machine Learning Training Will Plateau, Then Shrink,” Computer, vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 18–28, Jul. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2022.3148714.

A. S. Luccioni, S. Viguier, “Estimating the carbon footprint of BLOOM, a 176B parameter language model,” J. Mach. Learn. Res, vol. 24, no. 253, pp. 1–15, 2023.

J. Dodge et al., “Measuring the Carbon Intensity of AI in Cloud Instances,” in 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency, Jun. 2022, pp. 1877–1894, https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533234.

D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization,” Jan. 2017.

I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter, “Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization,” Jan. 2019.

Y. You et al., “Large Batch Optimization for Deep Learning: Training BERT in 76 minutes,” Jan. 2020.

X. Chen et al., “Symbolic Discovery of Optimization Algorithms,” May 2023.

H. Liu, Z. Li, D. Hall, P. Liang, and T. Ma, “Sophia: A Scalable Stochastic Second-order Optimizer for Language Model Pre-training,” Mar. 2024.

M. Cerezo et al., “Variational quantum algorithms,” Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 625–644, Aug. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9.

K. Bharti et al., “Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms,” Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 94, no. 1, p. 015004, Feb. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.94.015004.

P. Hauke, H. G. Katzgraber, W. Lechner, H. Nishimori, and W. D. Oliver, “Perspectives of quantum annealing: methods and implementations,” Reports on Progress in Physics, vol. 83, no. 5, p. 054401, May 2020, https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/ab85b8.

S. Yarkoni, E. Raponi, T. Bäck, and S. Schmitt, “Quantum annealing for industry applications: introduction and review,” Reports on Progress in Physics, vol. 85, no. 10, p. 104001, Oct. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/ac8c54.

E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, “A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm,” Nov. 2014.

Kuk-Hyun Han and Jong-Hwan Kim, “Quantum-inspired evolutionary algorithm for a class of combinatorial optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 580–593, Dec. 2002, https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2002.804320.

F. Tennie and T. N. Palmer, “Quantum Computers for Weather and Climate Prediction: The Good, the Bad, and the Noisy,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 104, no. 2, pp. E488–E500, Feb. 2023, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-22-0031.1.

G. Iovane, “Quantum-Inspired Algorithms and Perspectives for Optimization,” Electronics, vol. 14, no. 14, p. 2839, Jul. 2025, https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics14142839.

S. Sharma, S. Akashe, G. M. Upadhyay, and P. K. Soni, “Adaptive and Robust Feedback-Based Quantum Optimization using Reinforcement Learning,” Journal of Transformative Technologies and Sustainable Development, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 13, Oct. 2025, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41314-025-00076-3.

R. W. C. and A. Merose, “ARCO-ERA5: an analysis-ready cloud-optimized reanalysis dataset,” 22nd Conf. on Artificial Intelligence for Environmental Science, Amer. Meteor. Soc., Denver, CO, USA, 2023.

S. Rasp et al., “WeatherBench 2: A Benchmark for the Next Generation of Data‐Driven Global Weather Models,” Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, vol. 16, no. 6, Jun. 2024, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023MS004019.

D. Wierichs, J. Izaac, C. Wang, and C. Y.-Y. Lin, “General parameter-shift rules for quantum gradients,” Quantum, vol. 6, p. 677, Mar. 2022, https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2022-03-30-677.

S.-J. Ran and G. Su, “Tensor Networks for Interpretable and Efficient Quantum-Inspired Machine Learning,” Intelligent Computing, vol. 2, Jan. 2023, https://doi.org/10.34133/icomputing.0061.

D. Schon et al., “The QUANT-NET Testbed Development and Preliminary Results,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Sep. 2024, pp. 1799–1808, https://doi.org/10.1109/QCE60285.2024.00209.

S. S. Dutta, S. Sandeep, N. D, and A. S, “Hybrid quantum neural networks: harnessing dressed quantum circuits for enhanced tsunami prediction via earthquake data fusion,” EPJ Quantum Technology, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 4, Dec. 2025, https://doi.org/10.1140/epjqt/s40507-024-00303-4.

A. Sripat, “Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm and Quantum-enhanced Markov Chain Monte Carlo: A Hybrid Approach to Data Assimilation in 4DVAR,” Apr. 2025.

M. H. F. da Silva, G. F. de Jesus, C. M. S. Nascimento, V. L. da Silva, and C. S. Cruz, “Exploring Quantum Machine Learning for Weather Forecasting,” Brazilian Journal of Physics, vol. 56, no. 1, p. 22, Feb. 2026, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13538-025-01941-4.

Z. Zhiguang, C. Zhenlin, H. Xiao, and C. Wenjing, “Out-of-Plane compressive performance of a novel bio-inspired honeycomb with sinusoidal rib: integrated theoretical and numerical analysis,” Results in Engineering, vol. 28, p. 107314, Dec. 2025, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2025.107314.

C. Xu, F. Erata, and J. Szefer, “Quantum Computer Fault Injection Attacks,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Sep. 2024, pp. 331–337, https://doi.org/10.1109/QCE60285.2024.00047.

S. Rasp, P. D. Dueben, S. Scher, J. A. Weyn, S. Mouatadid, and N. Thuerey, “WeatherBench: A Benchmark Data Set for Data‐Driven Weather Forecasting,” Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, vol. 12, no. 11, Nov. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002203.

Downloads

Published

08-06-2026

Issue

Section

Regular Issue

How to Cite

Hybrid Quantum-Inspired Intelligent Computing Model for Real-Time Optimization of Massive Heterogeneous Climate Datasets. (2026). International Journal of Data Informatics and Intelligent Computing, 5(2), 35-49. https://doi.org/10.59461/ijdiic.v5i2.281