Quantum-Aided Bayesian Learning for the Prediction and Uncertainty Quantification of Remaining Useful Life

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Published Jul 3, 2026
Giorgio Tosti Balducci Nick Eleftheroglou

Abstract

To make predictions on the future states of engineering systems, prognostics has been increasingly relying on data-driven models and machine learning. Recent work has also looked at the potential of quantum machine learning to provide insight on the health state of systems. Nevertheless, these approaches treated the quantum component only as a deterministic predictor, in fact disregarding the uncertainty information. In this work, we propose a different approach to exploiting quantum circuits in prognostics. We focus on Bayesian learning of neural networks for Remaining Useful Life (RUL) prediction and uncertainty quantification. Here, the quantum circuit is introduced not as a data-driven model, but as a generator of neural network weights. Using Variational Inference, the quantum circuit can be trained to approximate the true posterior of the classical machine learning predictor. The overall method retains the data-processing ability of state-of-the-art machine learning models, while exploiting the quantum circuit to introduce uncertainty by sampling the model
space from a distribution that is classically nontrivial. We validate our approach on the task of predicting the End of Discharge of Li-ion batteries, using data generated from a simulator with tunable process uncertainty, and we compare the predictions obtained through quantum sampling with those from Flipout Bayesian neural networks, heteroscedastic neural networks and Monte Carlo Dropout. The results show that our quantum circuits learn to approximate the weight posterior and that the resulting data-driven models demonstrate accuracy and uncertainty quantification that is comparable if not superior to the baselines. Overall, our work demonstrates the potential of quantum computing for uncertainty-aware prognostics, and sets the stage for further investigations in this area.

How to Cite

Tosti Balducci, G., & Eleftheroglou, N. . (2026). Quantum-Aided Bayesian Learning for the Prediction and Uncertainty Quantification of Remaining Useful Life. PHM Society European Conference, 9(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.36001/phme.2026.v9i1.4971
Abstract 0 | PDF Downloads 0

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

remaining useful life, bayesian neural networks, quantum computing, uncertainty, battery prognostics

References
Benedetti, M., Coyle, B., Fiorentini, M., Lubasch, M., & Rosenkranz, M. (2021). Variational inference with a quantum computer. Physical Review Applied, 16(4), 044057. doi: 10.1103/physrevapplied.16.044057

Biamonte, J., Wittek, P., Pancotti, N., Rebentrost, P., Wiebe, N., & Lloyd, S. (2017). Quantum machine learning. Nature, 549, 195–202. doi: 10.1038/nature23474

Blei, D. M., Kucukelbir, A., & McAuliffe, J. D. (2017). Variational inference: A review for statisticians. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 112, 859–877. doi: 10.1080/01621459.2017.1285773

Blundell, C., Cornebise, J., Kavukcuoglu, K., & Wierstra, D. (2015). Weight uncertainty in neural networks. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) (pp. 1613–1622).

Bustos, J. E. G., Schiele, B. B., Baldo, L., Masserano, B., Jaramillo-Montoya, F., Troncoso-Kurtovic, D., ... Silva, J. F. (2025). In situ estimation of Li-ion battery state of health using on-board electrical measurements for electromobility applications. Batteries, 11(12), 451. doi: 10.3390/batteries11120451

Ferreira, C., & Gonçalves, G. (2022). Remaining useful life prediction and challenges: A literature review on the use of machine learning methods. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 63, 550–562. doi: 10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.05.010

Gal, Y., & Ghahramani, Z. (2016). Dropout as a Bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) (pp. 1050–1059).

Goodfellow, I. J., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., ... Bengio, Y. (2014). Generative adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.2661. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1406.2661

Heimes, F. O. (2008). Recurrent neural networks for remaining useful life estimation. In 2008 International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management (pp. 1–6). IEEE. doi: 10.1109/phm.2008.4711422

Hersbach, H. (2000). Decomposition of the continuous ranked probability score for ensemble prediction systems. Weather and Forecasting, 15(5), 559–570. doi: 10.1175/1520-0434(2000)015<0559:dotcrp>2.0.co;2

Jordan, M. I., Ghahramani, Z., Jaakkola, T. S., & Saul, L. K. (1999). An introduction to variational methods for graphical models. Machine Learning, 37, 183–233. doi: 10.1023/A:1007665907178

Kraus, M., & Feuerriegel, S. (2019). Forecasting remaining useful life: Interpretable deep learning approach via variational Bayesian inferences. Decision Support Systems, 125, 113100. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2019.113100

Lakshminarayanan, B., Pritzel, A., & Blundell, C. (2017). Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. In I. Guyon et al. (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 30). Curran Associates, Inc.

Lei, Y., Li, N., Guo, L., Li, N., Yan, T., & Lin, J. (2018). Machinery health prognostics: A systematic review from data acquisition to RUL prediction. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 104, 799–834. doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2017.11.016

Li, X., Ding, Q., & Sun, J.-Q. (2018). Remaining useful life estimation in prognostics using deep convolution neural networks. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 172, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2017.11.021

MacKay, D. J. C. (1992). A practical Bayesian framework for backpropagation networks. Neural Computation, 4, 448–472. doi: 10.1162/neco.1992.4.3.448

Maior, C. B. S., Araújo, L. M. M., Lins, I. D., Moura, M. D. C., & Droguett, E. L. (2023). Prognostics and health management of rotating machinery via quantum machine learning. IEEE Access, 11, 25132–25151. doi: 10.1109/access.2023.3255417

Martín Silva, G. S., & López Droguett, E. (2024). Quantum kernel functions for the prognosis and health management of ball-bearing elements. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management (ICPHM) (pp. 257–264). IEEE. doi: 10.1109/icphm61352.2024.10626686

Neal, R. M. (1996). Bayesian learning for neural networks (Vol. 118). Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-0745-0

Nemani, V., Biggio, L., Huan, X., Hu, Z., Fink, O., Tran, A., ... Hu, C. (2023). Uncertainty quantification in machine learning for engineering design and health prognostics: A tutorial. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 205, 110796. doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2023.110796

Nielsen, M. A., & Chuang, I. L. (2012). Quantum computation and quantum information: 10th anniversary edition. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511976667

Romero, J., & Aspuru-Guzik, A. (2021). Variational quantum generators: Generative adversarial quantum machine learning for continuous distributions. Advanced Quantum Technologies, 4(1), 2000003.

Sakhnenko, A., Sikora, J., & Lorenz, J. (2024). Building continuous quantum-classical Bayesian neural networks for a classical clinical dataset. In Proceedings of Recent Advances in Quantum Computing and Technology (pp. 62–72). ACM. doi: 10.1145/3665870.3665872

Salinas-Camus, M., Goebel, K., & Eleftheroglou, N. (2025a). A comprehensive review and evaluation framework for data-driven prognostics: Uncertainty, robustness, interpretability, and feasibility. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 237, 113015. doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2025.113015

Salinas-Camus, M., Goebel, K., & Eleftheroglou, N. (2025b). A comprehensive review and evaluation framework for data-driven prognostics: Uncertainty, robustness, interpretability, and feasibility. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 237, 113015. doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2025.113015

Sankararaman, S., & Goebel, K. (2015). Uncertainty quantification in remaining useful life prediction for aerospace components. International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management, 6(4), 1–17. doi: 10.36001/ijphm.2015.v6i4.2285

Saxena, A., Goebel, K., Simon, D., & Eklund, N. (2008). Damage propagation modeling for aircraft engine run-to-failure simulation. In 2008 International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management (pp. 1–9). IEEE. doi: 10.1109/phm.2008.4711414

Schuld, M., & Petruccione, F. (2021). Machine learning with quantum computers. Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-83098-4

Shi, J., Rivera, A., & Wu, D. (2022). Battery health management using physics-informed machine learning: Online degradation modeling and remaining useful life prediction. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 179, 109347. doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2022.109347

Sikorska, J. Z., Hodkiewicz, M., & Ma, L. (2011). Prognostic modelling options for remaining useful life estimation by industry. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 25, 1803–1836. doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2010.11.018

Wen, Y., Vicol, P., Ba, J., Tran, D., & Grosse, R. (2018). Flipout: Efficient pseudo-independent weight perturbations on mini-batches. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.04386. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1803.04386

Zhang, J., Jiang, Y., Wu, S., Li, X., Luo, H., & Yin, S. (2022). Prediction of remaining useful life based on bidirectional gated recurrent unit with temporal self-attention mechanism. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 221, 108377. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2021.108297

Zhao, Z., Wu, J., Wong, D., Sun, C., & Yan, R. (2020). Probabilistic remaining useful life prediction based on deep convolutional neural network. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3717738
Section
Technical Papers