<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://wikis.ch.cam.ac.uk/thom/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Bc537</id>
	<title>Thom Group Wiki - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://wikis.ch.cam.ac.uk/thom/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Bc537"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wikis.ch.cam.ac.uk/thom/wiki/index.php/Special:Contributions/Bc537"/>
	<updated>2026-06-10T09:53:57Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.39.7</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wikis.ch.cam.ac.uk/thom/wiki/index.php?title=Quantum_Brainstorm&amp;diff=1190</id>
		<title>Quantum Brainstorm</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wikis.ch.cam.ac.uk/thom/wiki/index.php?title=Quantum_Brainstorm&amp;diff=1190"/>
		<updated>2023-11-09T08:37:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bc537: /* Choy Boy - QML, classification: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Notes about previous and future quantum brainstorm sessions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==FUTURE==&lt;br /&gt;
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.12726.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Swap test : phase problem (Lila)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==24 October 2023==&lt;br /&gt;
===Chiara - QCELS:===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Early fault tolerant phase estimation algorithm:&lt;br /&gt;
*split up the phase estimation into separate Hadamard tests, only one ancilla qubit required for each test&lt;br /&gt;
*Heisenberg limit (1/eps rather than 1/eps^2) scaling retained&lt;br /&gt;
*T_max is much lower than in conventional QPE =&amp;gt; early Fault tolerant&lt;br /&gt;
*only requires a squares overlap with the GS of 0.5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paper 1:&lt;br /&gt;
https://journals.aps.org/prxquantum/pdf/10.1103/PRXQuantum.4.020331&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paper 2 (about one month later, they realised their analysis wasn&#039;t optimal - you only need a squared overlap with the GS of 0.5, rather than 0.71):&lt;br /&gt;
https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.05714&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nice talk from IPAM 2023:&lt;br /&gt;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-MaQtgzksY&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==7 November 2023==&lt;br /&gt;
===Choy Boy - QML, classification:===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For a variational quantum supervised classifier, data is first loaded (most commonly using rotation encoding via rotation gates), and an ansatz is used to minimise the cost function associated with the data&#039;s labels&lt;br /&gt;
* Parameter shift rule: can use the same circuit to evaluate cost function + gradient in cost function, highly parallelisable&lt;br /&gt;
* Parameter shift rule holds true even under noisy conditions due to trace linearity (https://johannesjakobmeyer.com/blog/004-noisy-parameter-shift/)&lt;br /&gt;
* Ansatze for local cost functions do not exhibit barren plateaus (eg https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.01828.pdf)&lt;br /&gt;
* MSE loss function computed classically from quantum measurements&lt;br /&gt;
* Quantum state preparation (loading classical data into a quantum state) is possibly the largest bottleneck? Can do this with qGANs (problem: large number of samples)&lt;br /&gt;
* Hypothesis that local minima could give rise to better classification rates than the global minimum under certain scenarios, in a similar vein to QAOA where certain graphs at finite number of ansatz layers have local minima with a higher probability of finding the correct max-cut solution than the global minimum&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Other things===&lt;br /&gt;
Appendix B in: https://journals.aps.org/pra/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.062324&lt;br /&gt;
* Looks at the effect of applying a small perturbation to one of the angles in the Ansatz (depolarising error) - due to the unitarity of the gates, the perturbation gets washed out (fidelity susceptibility is independent of the layer index in which the perturbation occurs)&lt;br /&gt;
* Figure 7 shows the distribution of gradients for the MMD loss function: distribution is shown to be independent of the layer; also, variance decays exponentially with the number of shots taken&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can switch loss function to get a slightly different landscape: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/23/10/1281&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recent paper that compares global vs local cost functions for binary and multi-class classification: for binary classification global cost function seems to perform better, while multiclass classification local cost function seems to perform better: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2632-2153/acb12f/pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Barren plateaus===&lt;br /&gt;
Would be nice to have an explanation of exactly what a barren plateau is... gradient and variance in gradient decays exponentially to zero with system size? Unique to quantum circuits...&lt;br /&gt;
* More expressive means more likely to exhibit barren plateaus: https://journals.aps.org/prxquantum/abstract/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.010313&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bc537</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wikis.ch.cam.ac.uk/thom/wiki/index.php?title=Quantum_Brainstorm&amp;diff=1189</id>
		<title>Quantum Brainstorm</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wikis.ch.cam.ac.uk/thom/wiki/index.php?title=Quantum_Brainstorm&amp;diff=1189"/>
		<updated>2023-11-09T08:37:17Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bc537: /* Choy Boy - QML, classification: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Notes about previous and future quantum brainstorm sessions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==FUTURE==&lt;br /&gt;
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.12726.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Swap test : phase problem (Lila)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==24 October 2023==&lt;br /&gt;
===Chiara - QCELS:===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Early fault tolerant phase estimation algorithm:&lt;br /&gt;
*split up the phase estimation into separate Hadamard tests, only one ancilla qubit required for each test&lt;br /&gt;
*Heisenberg limit (1/eps rather than 1/eps^2) scaling retained&lt;br /&gt;
*T_max is much lower than in conventional QPE =&amp;gt; early Fault tolerant&lt;br /&gt;
*only requires a squares overlap with the GS of 0.5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paper 1:&lt;br /&gt;
https://journals.aps.org/prxquantum/pdf/10.1103/PRXQuantum.4.020331&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paper 2 (about one month later, they realised their analysis wasn&#039;t optimal - you only need a squared overlap with the GS of 0.5, rather than 0.71):&lt;br /&gt;
https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.05714&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nice talk from IPAM 2023:&lt;br /&gt;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-MaQtgzksY&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==7 November 2023==&lt;br /&gt;
===Choy Boy - QML, classification:===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For a variational quantum supervised classifier, data is loaded (most commonly using rotation encoding via rotation gates), and an ansatz is used to minimise the cost function associated with the data&#039;s labels&lt;br /&gt;
* Parameter shift rule: can use the same circuit to evaluate cost function + gradient in cost function, highly parallelisable&lt;br /&gt;
* Parameter shift rule holds true even under noisy conditions due to trace linearity (https://johannesjakobmeyer.com/blog/004-noisy-parameter-shift/)&lt;br /&gt;
* Ansatze for local cost functions do not exhibit barren plateaus (eg https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.01828.pdf)&lt;br /&gt;
* MSE loss function computed classically from quantum measurements&lt;br /&gt;
* Quantum state preparation (loading classical data into a quantum state) is possibly the largest bottleneck? Can do this with qGANs (problem: large number of samples)&lt;br /&gt;
* Hypothesis that local minima could give rise to better classification rates than the global minimum under certain scenarios, in a similar vein to QAOA where certain graphs at finite number of ansatz layers have local minima with a higher probability of finding the correct max-cut solution than the global minimum&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Other things===&lt;br /&gt;
Appendix B in: https://journals.aps.org/pra/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.062324&lt;br /&gt;
* Looks at the effect of applying a small perturbation to one of the angles in the Ansatz (depolarising error) - due to the unitarity of the gates, the perturbation gets washed out (fidelity susceptibility is independent of the layer index in which the perturbation occurs)&lt;br /&gt;
* Figure 7 shows the distribution of gradients for the MMD loss function: distribution is shown to be independent of the layer; also, variance decays exponentially with the number of shots taken&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can switch loss function to get a slightly different landscape: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/23/10/1281&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recent paper that compares global vs local cost functions for binary and multi-class classification: for binary classification global cost function seems to perform better, while multiclass classification local cost function seems to perform better: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2632-2153/acb12f/pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Barren plateaus===&lt;br /&gt;
Would be nice to have an explanation of exactly what a barren plateau is... gradient and variance in gradient decays exponentially to zero with system size? Unique to quantum circuits...&lt;br /&gt;
* More expressive means more likely to exhibit barren plateaus: https://journals.aps.org/prxquantum/abstract/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.010313&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bc537</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wikis.ch.cam.ac.uk/thom/wiki/index.php?title=Quantum_Brainstorm&amp;diff=1188</id>
		<title>Quantum Brainstorm</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wikis.ch.cam.ac.uk/thom/wiki/index.php?title=Quantum_Brainstorm&amp;diff=1188"/>
		<updated>2023-11-09T08:33:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bc537: /* Choy Boy - QML, classification: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Notes about previous and future quantum brainstorm sessions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==FUTURE==&lt;br /&gt;
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.12726.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Swap test : phase problem (Lila)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==24 October 2023==&lt;br /&gt;
===Chiara - QCELS:===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Early fault tolerant phase estimation algorithm:&lt;br /&gt;
*split up the phase estimation into separate Hadamard tests, only one ancilla qubit required for each test&lt;br /&gt;
*Heisenberg limit (1/eps rather than 1/eps^2) scaling retained&lt;br /&gt;
*T_max is much lower than in conventional QPE =&amp;gt; early Fault tolerant&lt;br /&gt;
*only requires a squares overlap with the GS of 0.5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paper 1:&lt;br /&gt;
https://journals.aps.org/prxquantum/pdf/10.1103/PRXQuantum.4.020331&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paper 2 (about one month later, they realised their analysis wasn&#039;t optimal - you only need a squared overlap with the GS of 0.5, rather than 0.71):&lt;br /&gt;
https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.05714&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nice talk from IPAM 2023:&lt;br /&gt;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-MaQtgzksY&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==7 November 2023==&lt;br /&gt;
===Choy Boy - QML, classification:===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Parameter shift rule: can use the same circuit to evaluate cost function + gradient in cost function, highly parallelisable&lt;br /&gt;
* Parameter shift rule holds true even under noisy conditions due to trace linearity (https://johannesjakobmeyer.com/blog/004-noisy-parameter-shift/)&lt;br /&gt;
* Ansatze for local cost functions do not exhibit barren plateaus (eg https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.01828.pdf)&lt;br /&gt;
* MSE loss function computed classically from quantum measurements&lt;br /&gt;
* Quantum state preparation (loading classical data into a quantum state) is possibly the largest bottleneck? Can do this with qGANs (problem: large number of samples)&lt;br /&gt;
* Hypothesis that local minima could give rise to better classification rates than the global minimum under certain scenarios, in a similar vein to QAOA where certain graphs at finite number of ansatz layers have local minima with a higher probability of finding the correct max-cut solution than the global minimum&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Other things===&lt;br /&gt;
Appendix B in: https://journals.aps.org/pra/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.062324&lt;br /&gt;
* Looks at the effect of applying a small perturbation to one of the angles in the Ansatz (depolarising error) - due to the unitarity of the gates, the perturbation gets washed out (fidelity susceptibility is independent of the layer index in which the perturbation occurs)&lt;br /&gt;
* Figure 7 shows the distribution of gradients for the MMD loss function: distribution is shown to be independent of the layer; also, variance decays exponentially with the number of shots taken&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can switch loss function to get a slightly different landscape: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/23/10/1281&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recent paper that compares global vs local cost functions for binary and multi-class classification: for binary classification global cost function seems to perform better, while multiclass classification local cost function seems to perform better: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2632-2153/acb12f/pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Barren plateaus===&lt;br /&gt;
Would be nice to have an explanation of exactly what a barren plateau is... gradient and variance in gradient decays exponentially to zero with system size? Unique to quantum circuits...&lt;br /&gt;
* More expressive means more likely to exhibit barren plateaus: https://journals.aps.org/prxquantum/abstract/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.010313&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bc537</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wikis.ch.cam.ac.uk/thom/wiki/index.php?title=Quantum_Brainstorm&amp;diff=1187</id>
		<title>Quantum Brainstorm</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wikis.ch.cam.ac.uk/thom/wiki/index.php?title=Quantum_Brainstorm&amp;diff=1187"/>
		<updated>2023-11-09T08:28:24Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bc537: /* Choy Boy - QML, classification: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Notes about previous and future quantum brainstorm sessions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==FUTURE==&lt;br /&gt;
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.12726.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Swap test : phase problem (Lila)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==24 October 2023==&lt;br /&gt;
===Chiara - QCELS:===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Early fault tolerant phase estimation algorithm:&lt;br /&gt;
*split up the phase estimation into separate Hadamard tests, only one ancilla qubit required for each test&lt;br /&gt;
*Heisenberg limit (1/eps rather than 1/eps^2) scaling retained&lt;br /&gt;
*T_max is much lower than in conventional QPE =&amp;gt; early Fault tolerant&lt;br /&gt;
*only requires a squares overlap with the GS of 0.5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paper 1:&lt;br /&gt;
https://journals.aps.org/prxquantum/pdf/10.1103/PRXQuantum.4.020331&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paper 2 (about one month later, they realised their analysis wasn&#039;t optimal - you only need a squared overlap with the GS of 0.5, rather than 0.71):&lt;br /&gt;
https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.05714&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nice talk from IPAM 2023:&lt;br /&gt;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-MaQtgzksY&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==7 November 2023==&lt;br /&gt;
===Choy Boy - QML, classification:===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Parameter shift rule: can use the same circuit to evaluate cost function + gradient in cost function, highly parallelisable&lt;br /&gt;
* Parameter shift rule holds true even under noisy conditions due to trace linearity (https://johannesjakobmeyer.com/blog/004-noisy-parameter-shift/)&lt;br /&gt;
* Ansatze for local cost functions do not exhibit barren plateaus (eg https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.01828.pdf)&lt;br /&gt;
* MSE loss function computed classically from quantum measurements&lt;br /&gt;
* Quantum state preparation (loading classical data into a quantum state) is possibly the largest bottleneck? Can do this with qGANs (problem: large number of samples)&lt;br /&gt;
* Hypothesis that local minima could give rise to better classification rates than the global minimum, in a similar vein to QAOA where certain graphs at finite number of ansatz layers have local minima with a higher probability of finding the correct max-cut solution than the global minimum&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Other things===&lt;br /&gt;
Appendix B in: https://journals.aps.org/pra/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.062324&lt;br /&gt;
* Looks at the effect of applying a small perturbation to one of the angles in the Ansatz (depolarising error) - due to the unitarity of the gates, the perturbation gets washed out (fidelity susceptibility is independent of the layer index in which the perturbation occurs)&lt;br /&gt;
* Figure 7 shows the distribution of gradients for the MMD loss function: distribution is shown to be independent of the layer; also, variance decays exponentially with the number of shots taken&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can switch loss function to get a slightly different landscape: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/23/10/1281&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recent paper that compares global vs local cost functions for binary and multi-class classification: for binary classification global cost function seems to perform better, while multiclass classification local cost function seems to perform better: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2632-2153/acb12f/pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Barren plateaus===&lt;br /&gt;
Would be nice to have an explanation of exactly what a barren plateau is... gradient and variance in gradient decays exponentially to zero with system size? Unique to quantum circuits...&lt;br /&gt;
* More expressive means more likely to exhibit barren plateaus: https://journals.aps.org/prxquantum/abstract/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.010313&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bc537</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wikis.ch.cam.ac.uk/thom/wiki/index.php?title=Quantum_Brainstorm&amp;diff=1186</id>
		<title>Quantum Brainstorm</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wikis.ch.cam.ac.uk/thom/wiki/index.php?title=Quantum_Brainstorm&amp;diff=1186"/>
		<updated>2023-11-09T08:26:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bc537: /* Choy Boy - QML, classification: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Notes about previous and future quantum brainstorm sessions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==FUTURE==&lt;br /&gt;
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.12726.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Swap test : phase problem (Lila)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==24 October 2023==&lt;br /&gt;
===Chiara - QCELS:===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Early fault tolerant phase estimation algorithm:&lt;br /&gt;
*split up the phase estimation into separate Hadamard tests, only one ancilla qubit required for each test&lt;br /&gt;
*Heisenberg limit (1/eps rather than 1/eps^2) scaling retained&lt;br /&gt;
*T_max is much lower than in conventional QPE =&amp;gt; early Fault tolerant&lt;br /&gt;
*only requires a squares overlap with the GS of 0.5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paper 1:&lt;br /&gt;
https://journals.aps.org/prxquantum/pdf/10.1103/PRXQuantum.4.020331&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paper 2 (about one month later, they realised their analysis wasn&#039;t optimal - you only need a squared overlap with the GS of 0.5, rather than 0.71):&lt;br /&gt;
https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.05714&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nice talk from IPAM 2023:&lt;br /&gt;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-MaQtgzksY&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==7 November 2023==&lt;br /&gt;
===Choy Boy - QML, classification:===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Parameter shift rule: can use the same circuit to evaluate cost function + gradient in cost function, highly parallelisable&lt;br /&gt;
* Parameter shift rule holds true even under noisy conditions due to trace linearity (https://johannesjakobmeyer.com/blog/004-noisy-parameter-shift/)&lt;br /&gt;
* Ansatze for local cost functions do not exhibit barren plateaus (eg https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.01828.pdf)&lt;br /&gt;
* MSE loss function computed classically from quantum measurements&lt;br /&gt;
* Quantum state preparation (loading classical data into a quantum state) is possibly the largest bottleneck? Can do this with qGANs (problem: large number of samples)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Other things===&lt;br /&gt;
Appendix B in: https://journals.aps.org/pra/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.062324&lt;br /&gt;
* Looks at the effect of applying a small perturbation to one of the angles in the Ansatz (depolarising error) - due to the unitarity of the gates, the perturbation gets washed out (fidelity susceptibility is independent of the layer index in which the perturbation occurs)&lt;br /&gt;
* Figure 7 shows the distribution of gradients for the MMD loss function: distribution is shown to be independent of the layer; also, variance decays exponentially with the number of shots taken&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can switch loss function to get a slightly different landscape: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/23/10/1281&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recent paper that compares global vs local cost functions for binary and multi-class classification: for binary classification global cost function seems to perform better, while multiclass classification local cost function seems to perform better: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2632-2153/acb12f/pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Barren plateaus===&lt;br /&gt;
Would be nice to have an explanation of exactly what a barren plateau is... gradient and variance in gradient decays exponentially to zero with system size? Unique to quantum circuits...&lt;br /&gt;
* More expressive means more likely to exhibit barren plateaus: https://journals.aps.org/prxquantum/abstract/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.010313&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bc537</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wikis.ch.cam.ac.uk/thom/wiki/index.php?title=Quantum_Brainstorm&amp;diff=1185</id>
		<title>Quantum Brainstorm</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wikis.ch.cam.ac.uk/thom/wiki/index.php?title=Quantum_Brainstorm&amp;diff=1185"/>
		<updated>2023-11-09T08:23:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bc537: /* Other things */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Notes about previous and future quantum brainstorm sessions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==FUTURE==&lt;br /&gt;
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.12726.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Swap test : phase problem (Lila)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==24 October 2023==&lt;br /&gt;
===Chiara - QCELS:===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Early fault tolerant phase estimation algorithm:&lt;br /&gt;
*split up the phase estimation into separate Hadamard tests, only one ancilla qubit required for each test&lt;br /&gt;
*Heisenberg limit (1/eps rather than 1/eps^2) scaling retained&lt;br /&gt;
*T_max is much lower than in conventional QPE =&amp;gt; early Fault tolerant&lt;br /&gt;
*only requires a squares overlap with the GS of 0.5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paper 1:&lt;br /&gt;
https://journals.aps.org/prxquantum/pdf/10.1103/PRXQuantum.4.020331&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paper 2 (about one month later, they realised their analysis wasn&#039;t optimal - you only need a squared overlap with the GS of 0.5, rather than 0.71):&lt;br /&gt;
https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.05714&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nice talk from IPAM 2023:&lt;br /&gt;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-MaQtgzksY&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==7 November 2023==&lt;br /&gt;
===Choy Boy - QML, classification:===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Parameter shift rule: can use the same circuit to evaluate cost function + gradient in cost function, highly parallelisable&lt;br /&gt;
* Ansatze for local cost functions do not exhibit barren plateaus (eg https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.01828.pdf)&lt;br /&gt;
* MSE loss function computed classically from quantum measurements&lt;br /&gt;
* Quantum state preparation (loading classical data into a quantum state) is possibly the largest bottleneck? Can do this with qGANs (problem: large number of samples)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Other things===&lt;br /&gt;
Appendix B in: https://journals.aps.org/pra/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.062324&lt;br /&gt;
* Looks at the effect of applying a small perturbation to one of the angles in the Ansatz (depolarising error) - due to the unitarity of the gates, the perturbation gets washed out (fidelity susceptibility is independent of the layer index in which the perturbation occurs)&lt;br /&gt;
* Figure 7 shows the distribution of gradients for the MMD loss function: distribution is shown to be independent of the layer; also, variance decays exponentially with the number of shots taken&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can switch loss function to get a slightly different landscape: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/23/10/1281&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recent paper that compares global vs local cost functions for binary and multi-class classification: for binary classification global cost function seems to perform better, while multiclass classification local cost function seems to perform better: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2632-2153/acb12f/pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Barren plateaus===&lt;br /&gt;
Would be nice to have an explanation of exactly what a barren plateau is... gradient and variance in gradient decays exponentially to zero with system size? Unique to quantum circuits...&lt;br /&gt;
* More expressive means more likely to exhibit barren plateaus: https://journals.aps.org/prxquantum/abstract/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.010313&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bc537</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wikis.ch.cam.ac.uk/thom/wiki/index.php?title=Quantum_Brainstorm&amp;diff=1184</id>
		<title>Quantum Brainstorm</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wikis.ch.cam.ac.uk/thom/wiki/index.php?title=Quantum_Brainstorm&amp;diff=1184"/>
		<updated>2023-11-09T08:22:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bc537: /* Other things */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Notes about previous and future quantum brainstorm sessions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==FUTURE==&lt;br /&gt;
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.12726.pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Swap test : phase problem (Lila)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==24 October 2023==&lt;br /&gt;
===Chiara - QCELS:===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Early fault tolerant phase estimation algorithm:&lt;br /&gt;
*split up the phase estimation into separate Hadamard tests, only one ancilla qubit required for each test&lt;br /&gt;
*Heisenberg limit (1/eps rather than 1/eps^2) scaling retained&lt;br /&gt;
*T_max is much lower than in conventional QPE =&amp;gt; early Fault tolerant&lt;br /&gt;
*only requires a squares overlap with the GS of 0.5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paper 1:&lt;br /&gt;
https://journals.aps.org/prxquantum/pdf/10.1103/PRXQuantum.4.020331&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paper 2 (about one month later, they realised their analysis wasn&#039;t optimal - you only need a squared overlap with the GS of 0.5, rather than 0.71):&lt;br /&gt;
https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.05714&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nice talk from IPAM 2023:&lt;br /&gt;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-MaQtgzksY&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==7 November 2023==&lt;br /&gt;
===Choy Boy - QML, classification:===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Parameter shift rule: can use the same circuit to evaluate cost function + gradient in cost function, highly parallelisable&lt;br /&gt;
* Ansatze for local cost functions do not exhibit barren plateaus (eg https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.01828.pdf)&lt;br /&gt;
* MSE loss function computed classically from quantum measurements&lt;br /&gt;
* Quantum state preparation (loading classical data into a quantum state) is possibly the largest bottleneck? Can do this with qGANs (problem: large number of samples)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Other things===&lt;br /&gt;
Appendix B in: https://journals.aps.org/pra/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.062324&lt;br /&gt;
* Looks at the effect of applying a small perturbation to one of the angles in the Ansatz (depolarising error) - due to the unitarity of the gates, the perturbation gets washed out (fidelity susceptibility is independent of the layer index in which the perturbation occurs)&lt;br /&gt;
* Figure 7 shows the distribution of gradients for the MMD loss function: distribution is shown to be independent of the layer; also, variance decays exponentially with the number of shots taken&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can switch loss function to get a slightly different landscape: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/23/10/1281&lt;br /&gt;
Recent paper that compares global vs local cost functions for binary and multi-class classification: for binary classification global cost function seems to perform better, while multiclass classification local cost function seems to perform better: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2632-2153/acb12f/pdf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Barren plateaus===&lt;br /&gt;
Would be nice to have an explanation of exactly what a barren plateau is... gradient and variance in gradient decays exponentially to zero with system size? Unique to quantum circuits...&lt;br /&gt;
* More expressive means more likely to exhibit barren plateaus: https://journals.aps.org/prxquantum/abstract/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.010313&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bc537</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>