MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376604100 · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/acd578

Do quantum circuit Born machines generalize?

2023· article· en· W4376604100 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueQuantum Science and Technology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersArmy Research OfficeMitacsUK Research and Innovation
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)GeneralizationComputer scienceGenerative grammarCardinality (data modeling)AlgorithmSet (abstract data type)Generative modelArtificial intelligenceMachine learningTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In recent proposals of quantum circuit models for generative tasks, the discussion about their performance has been limited to their ability to reproduce a known target distribution. For example, expressive model families such as quantum circuit Born machines (QCBMs) have been almost entirely evaluated on their capability to learn a given target distribution with high accuracy. While this aspect may be ideal for some tasks, it limits the scope of a generative model’s assessment to its ability to memorize data rather than generalize . As a result, there has been little understanding of a model’s generalization performance and the relation between such capability and the resource requirements, e.g. the circuit depth and the amount of training data. In this work, we leverage upon a recently proposed generalization evaluation framework to begin addressing this knowledge gap. We first investigate the QCBM’s learning process of a cardinality-constrained distribution and see an increase in generalization performance while increasing the circuit depth. In the 12-qubit example presented here, we observe that with as few as <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mn>30</mml:mn> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi> </mml:math> of the valid data in the training set, the QCBM exhibits the best generalization performance toward generating unseen and valid data. Lastly, we assess the QCBM’s ability to generalize not only to valid samples, but to high-quality bitstrings distributed according to an adequately re-weighted distribution. We see that the QCBM is able to effectively learn the reweighted dataset and generate unseen samples with higher quality than those in the training set. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work in the literature that presents the QCBM’s generalization performance as an integral evaluation metric for quantum generative models, and demonstrates the QCBM’s ability to generalize to high-quality, desired novel samples.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it