MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

LatentQGAN: A Hybrid QGAN with Classical Convolutional Autoencoder

2024· article· en· W4405908979 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexis Vieloszynski, Soumaya Cherkaoui, Ola Ahmad, Jean‐Frédéric Laprade, Olivier Nahman-Lévesque, Abdallah Aaraba, Shengrui Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsThales (Canada)Polytechnique MontréalInstitut quantiqueUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAutoencoderComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Deep learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantum machine learning consists in taking advantage of quantum computations to generate classical data. A potential application of quantum machine learning is to harness the power of quantum computers for generating classical data, a process essential to a multitude of applications such as enriching training datasets, anomaly detection, and risk management in finance. Given the success of Generative Adversarial Networks in classical image generation, the development of its quantum versions has been actively conducted. However, existing implementations on quantum computers often face significant challenges, such as scalability and training convergence issues. To address these issues, we propose LatentQGAN, a novel quantum model that uses a hybrid quantum-classical GAN coupled with an auto-encoder. Although it was initially designed for image generation, the LatentQGAN approach holds potential for broader application across various practical data generation tasks. Experimental outcomes on both classical simulators and noisy intermediate scale quantum computers have demonstrated significant performance enhancements over existing quantum methods, alongside a significant reduction in quantum resources overhead.

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 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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207