Do quantum circuit Born machines generalize?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 30 % 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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".