Quantum Deep Equilibrium Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The feasibility of variational quantum algorithms, the most popular correspondent of neural networks on noisy, near-term quantum hardware, is highly impacted by the circuit depth of the involved parametrized quantum circuits (PQCs). Higher depth increases expressivity, but also results in a detrimental accumulation of errors. Furthermore, the number of parameters involved in the PQC significantly influences the performance through the necessary number of measurements to evaluate gradients, which scales linearly with the number of parameters. Motivated by this, we look at deep equilibrium models (DEQs), which mimic an infinite-depth, weight-tied network using a fraction of the memory by employing a root solver to find the fixed points of the network. In this work, we present Quantum Deep Equilibrium Models (QDEQs): a training paradigm that learns parameters of a quantum machine learning model given by a PQC using DEQs. To our knowledge, no work has yet explored the application of DEQs to QML models. We apply QDEQs to find the parameters of a quantum circuit in two settings: the first involves classifying MNIST-4 digits with 4 qubits; the second extends it to 10 classes of MNIST, FashionMNIST and CIFAR. We find that QDEQ is not only competitive with comparable existing baseline models, but also achieves higher performance than a network with 5 times more layers. This demonstrates that the QDEQ paradigm can be used to develop significantly more shallow quantum circuits for a given task, something which is essential for the utility of near-term quantum computers. Our code is available at https://github.com/martaskrt/qdeq.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".