Quantum Brainstorm: Difference between revisions

From Thom Group Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 29: Line 29:


* Parameter shift rule: can use the same circuit to evaluate cost function + gradient in cost function, highly parallelisable
* Parameter shift rule: can use the same circuit to evaluate cost function + gradient in cost function, highly parallelisable
* Parameter shift rule holds true even under noisy conditions due to trace linearity (https://johannesjakobmeyer.com/blog/004-noisy-parameter-shift/)
* Ansatze for local cost functions do not exhibit barren plateaus (eg https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.01828.pdf)
* Ansatze for local cost functions do not exhibit barren plateaus (eg https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.01828.pdf)
* MSE loss function computed classically from quantum measurements
* MSE loss function computed classically from quantum measurements
* 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)
* 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)



===Other things===
===Other things===

Revision as of 08:26, 9 November 2023

Notes about previous and future quantum brainstorm sessions.


FUTURE

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.12726.pdf

Swap test : phase problem (Lila)

24 October 2023

Chiara - QCELS:

Early fault tolerant phase estimation algorithm:

  • split up the phase estimation into separate Hadamard tests, only one ancilla qubit required for each test
  • Heisenberg limit (1/eps rather than 1/eps^2) scaling retained
  • T_max is much lower than in conventional QPE => early Fault tolerant
  • only requires a squares overlap with the GS of 0.5

Paper 1: https://journals.aps.org/prxquantum/pdf/10.1103/PRXQuantum.4.020331

Paper 2 (about one month later, they realised their analysis wasn't optimal - you only need a squared overlap with the GS of 0.5, rather than 0.71): https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.05714

Nice talk from IPAM 2023: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-MaQtgzksY

7 November 2023

Choy Boy - QML, classification:

  • Parameter shift rule: can use the same circuit to evaluate cost function + gradient in cost function, highly parallelisable
  • Parameter shift rule holds true even under noisy conditions due to trace linearity (https://johannesjakobmeyer.com/blog/004-noisy-parameter-shift/)
  • Ansatze for local cost functions do not exhibit barren plateaus (eg https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.01828.pdf)
  • MSE loss function computed classically from quantum measurements
  • 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)

Other things

Appendix B in: https://journals.aps.org/pra/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.062324

  • 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)
  • 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

Can switch loss function to get a slightly different landscape: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/23/10/1281

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

Barren plateaus

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...