Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
133 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Exponential separations between classical and quantum learners (2306.16028v2)

Published 28 Jun 2023 in quant-ph and cs.LG

Abstract: Despite significant effort, the quantum machine learning community has only demonstrated quantum learning advantages for artificial cryptography-inspired datasets when dealing with classical data. In this paper we address the challenge of finding learning problems where quantum learning algorithms can achieve a provable exponential speedup over classical learning algorithms. We reflect on computational learning theory concepts related to this question and discuss how subtle differences in definitions can result in significantly different requirements and tasks for the learner to meet and solve. We examine existing learning problems with provable quantum speedups and find that they largely rely on the classical hardness of evaluating the function that generates the data, rather than identifying it. To address this, we present two new learning separations where the classical difficulty primarily lies in identifying the function generating the data. Furthermore, we explore computational hardness assumptions that can be leveraged to prove quantum speedups in scenarios where data is quantum-generated, which implies likely quantum advantages in a plethora of more natural settings (e.g., in condensed matter and high energy physics). We also discuss the limitations of the classical shadow paradigm in the context of learning separations, and how physically-motivated settings such as characterizing phases of matter and Hamiltonian learning fit in the computational learning framework.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (46)
  1. The computational complexity of linear optics. In Proceedings of the forty-third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, 2011.
  2. Sample-efficient learning of quantum many-body systems. In 2020 IEEE 61st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 685–691. IEEE, 2020.
  3. Scott Aaronson, Jan 2013. https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/15066/ consequences-of-bqp-subseteq-p-poly.
  4. Computational complexity: a modern approach. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
  5. Rsa and rabin functions: Certain parts are as hard as the whole. SIAM Journal on Computing, 17:194–209, 1988.
  6. Leonard Adleman. Two theorems on random polynomial time. In 19th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (SFCS 1978), pages 75–83. IEEE Computer Society, 1978.
  7. Guest column: A survey of quantum learning theory. ACM SIGACT News, 48, 2017.
  8. Blind quantum computation. International Journal of Quantum Information, 4, 2006.
  9. How to generate cryptographically strong sequences of pseudorandom bits. SIAM journal on Computing, 13, 1984.
  10. Average-case complexity versus approximate simulation of commuting quantum computations. Physical review letters, 117, 2016.
  11. Average-case complexity. Theoretical Computer Science, 2006.
  12. Quantum machine learning. Nature, 549, 2017.
  13. Complexity of supersymmetric systems and the cohomology problem. arXiv 2107.00011, 2021.
  14. Multi-dimensional fourier series with quantum circuits. arXiv 2302.03389, 2023.
  15. Complexity of the guided local hamiltonian problem: improved parameters and extension to excited states. arXiv 2207.10097, 2022.
  16. Encoding-dependent generalization bounds for parametrized quantum circuits. Quantum, 5, 2021.
  17. The bose-hubbard model is QMA-complete. In International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming. Springer, 2014.
  18. Andrew Macgregor Childs. Quantum information processing in continuous time. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2004.
  19. Random-self-reducibility of complete sets. SIAM Journal on Computing, 22:994–1005, 1993.
  20. On establishing learning separations between classical and quantum machine learning with classical data. arXiv 2208.06339, 2022.
  21. Improved hardness results for the guided local hamiltonian problem. arXiv 2207.10250, 2022.
  22. Why and how to establish a private code on a public network. In 23rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (SFCS 1982), pages 134–144. IEEE, 1982.
  23. Power of data in quantum machine learning (2020). Nature Communications, 2021.
  24. Quantum algorithm for simulating real time evolution of lattice hamiltonians. SIAM Journal on Computing, 2021.
  25. Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations. Physical review letters, 103, 2009.
  26. Optimal learning of quantum hamiltonians from high-temperature gibbs states. arXiv 2108.04842, 2021.
  27. Optimal learning of quantum hamiltonians from high-temperature gibbs states. In 2022 IEEE 63rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 135–146. IEEE, 2022.
  28. Provably efficient machine learning for quantum many-body problems. Science, 377, 2022.
  29. Learning many-body hamiltonians with heisenberg-limited scaling. arXiv 2210.03030, 2022.
  30. Bqp-completeness of scattering in scalar quantum field theory. Quantum, 2:44, 2018.
  31. Cryptographic limitations on learning boolean formulae and finite automata. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 1994.
  32. An introduction to computational learning theory. MIT press, 1994.
  33. A rigorous and robust quantum speed-up in supervised machine learning. Nature Physics, 2021.
  34. Quantum computational complexity of the N-representability problem: Qma complete. Physical review letters, 98:110503, 2007.
  35. Sequential minimal optimization for quantum-classical hybrid algorithms. Physical Review Research, 2, 2020.
  36. Quantum computation of molecular structure using data from challenging-to-classically-simulate nuclear magnetic resonance experiments. arXiv 2109.02163, 2021.
  37. Electronic structure in a fixed basis is qma-complete. arXiv 2103.08215, 2021.
  38. Relation between quantum advantage in supervised learning and quantum computational advantage. arXiv 2304.06687, 2023.
  39. The complexity of antiferromagnetic interactions and 2d lattices. Quantum Information & Computation, 17:636–672, 2017.
  40. Equivalences and separations between quantum and classical learnability. SIAM Journal on Computing, 2004.
  41. Peter Shor. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM review, 41, 1999.
  42. Understanding machine learning: From theory to algorithms. Cambridge university press, 2014.
  43. On the quantum versus classical learnability of discrete distributions. Quantum, 5, 2021.
  44. Effect of data encoding on the expressive power of variational quantum-machine-learning models. Physical Review A, 103, 2021.
  45. Guidable local hamiltonian problems with implications to heuristic ansatze state preparation and the quantum pcp conjecture. arXiv 2302.11578, 2023.
  46. Interacting boson problems can be qma hard. Physical review letters, 104, 2010.
Citations (13)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Youtube Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com