Quantum Brainstorm: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
Nice talk from IPAM 2023: |
Nice talk from IPAM 2023: |
||
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-MaQtgzksY |
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 |
|||
* Ansatze for local cost functions do not exhibit barren plateaus (reference?) |
|||
* MSE loss function computed classically from quantum measurements |
|||
* can switch loss function to get a slightly different landscape: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/23/10/1281 |
|||
===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 |
|||
===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... |
|||
* More expressive means more likely to exhibit barren plateaus: https://journals.aps.org/prxquantum/abstract/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.010313 |
|||
Revision as of 17:37, 7 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
- Ansatze for local cost functions do not exhibit barren plateaus (reference?)
- MSE loss function computed classically from quantum measurements
- can switch loss function to get a slightly different landscape: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/23/10/1281
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
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...
- More expressive means more likely to exhibit barren plateaus: https://journals.aps.org/prxquantum/abstract/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.010313