A Framework for Demonstrating Practical Quantum Advantage: Racing Quantum against Classical Generative Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generative modeling has seen a rising interest in both classical and quantum machine learning, and it represents a promising candidate to obtain a practical quantum advantage in the near term. In this study, we build over a proposed framework for evaluating the generalization performance of generative models, and we establish the first quantitative comparative race towards practical quantum advantage (PQA) between classical and quantum generative models, namely Quantum Circuit Born Machines (QCBMs), Transformers (TFs), Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs), Variational Autoencoders (VAEs), and Wasserstein Generative Adversarial Networks (WGANs). After defining four types of PQAs scenarios, we focus on what we refer to as potential PQA, aiming to compare quantum models with the best-known classical algorithms for the task at hand. We let the models race on a well-defined and application-relevant competition setting, where we illustrate and demonstrate our framework on 20 variables (qubits) generative modeling task. Our results suggest that QCBMs are more efficient in the data-limited regime than the other state-of-the-art classical generative models. Such a feature is highly desirable in a wide range of real-world applications where the available data is scarce.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".