Exponential separations between classical and quantum learners

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.Comment: this article supersedes arXiv:2208.0633

A Survey of Quantum Learning Theory

This paper surveys quantum learning theory: the theoretical aspects of machine learning using quantum computers. We describe the main results known for three models of learning: exact learning from membership queries, and Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) and agnostic learning from classical or quantum examples.Comment: 26 pages LaTeX. v2: many small changes to improve the presentation. This version will appear as Complexity Theory Column in SIGACT News in June 2017. v3: fixed a small ambiguity in the definition of gamma(C) and updated a referenc

Nonnegative/binary matrix factorization with a D-Wave quantum annealer

D-Wave quantum annealers represent a novel computational architecture and have attracted significant interest, but have been used for few real-world computations. Machine learning has been identified as an area where quantum annealing may be useful. Here, we show that the D-Wave 2X can be effectively used as part of an unsupervised machine learning method. This method can be used to analyze large datasets. The D-Wave only limits the number of features that can be extracted from the dataset. We apply this method to learn the features from a set of facial images

Shadows of quantum machine learning

Quantum machine learning is often highlighted as one of the most promising practical applications for which quantum computers could provide a computational advantage. However, a major obstacle to the widespread use of quantum machine learning models in practice is that these models, even once trained, still require access to a quantum computer in order to be evaluated on new data. To solve this issue, we introduce a class of quantum models where quantum resources are only required during training, while the deployment of the trained model is classical. Specifically, the training phase of our models ends with the generation of a ‘shadow model’ from which the classical deployment becomes possible. We prove that: (i) this class of models is universal for classically-deployed quantum machine learning; (ii) it does have restricted learning capacities compared to ‘fully quantum’ models, but nonetheless (iii) it achieves a provable learning advantage over fully classical learners, contingent on widely believed assumptions in complexity theory. These results provide compelling evidence that quantum machine learning can confer learning advantages across a substantially broader range of scenarios, where quantum computers are exclusively employed during the training phase. By enabling classical deployment, our approach facilitates the implementation of quantum machine learning models in various practical contexts

Quantum machine learning: a classical perspective

Recently, increased computational power and data availability, as well as algorithmic advances, have led machine learning techniques to impressive results in regression, classification, data-generation and reinforcement learning tasks. Despite these successes, the proximity to the physical limits of chip fabrication alongside the increasing size of datasets are motivating a growing number of researchers to explore the possibility of harnessing the power of quantum computation to speed-up classical machine learning algorithms. Here we review the literature in quantum machine learning and discuss perspectives for a mixed readership of classical machine learning and quantum computation experts. Particular emphasis will be placed on clarifying the limitations of quantum algorithms, how they compare with their best classical counterparts and why quantum resources are expected to provide advantages for learning problems. Learning in the presence of noise and certain computationally hard problems in machine learning are identified as promising directions for the field. Practical questions, like how to upload classical data into quantum form, will also be addressed.Comment: v3 33 pages; typos corrected and references adde

Optimal Quantum Sample Complexity of Learning Algorithms

$\newcommand{\eps}{\varepsilon}$In learning theory, the VC dimension of a concept class $C$ is the most common way to measure its "richness." In the PAC model \Theta\Big(\frac{d}{\eps} + \frac{\log(1/\delta)}{\eps}\Big) examples are necessary and sufficient for a learner to output, with probability $1-\delta$, a hypothesis $h$ that is \eps-close to the target concept $c$. In the related agnostic model, where the samples need not come from a $c\in C$, we know that \Theta\Big(\frac{d}{\eps^2} + \frac{\log(1/\delta)}{\eps^2}\Big) examples are necessary and sufficient to output an hypothesis $h\in C$ whose error is at most \eps worse than the best concept in $C$. Here we analyze quantum sample complexity, where each example is a coherent quantum state. This model was introduced by Bshouty and Jackson, who showed that quantum examples are more powerful than classical examples in some fixed-distribution settings. However, Atici and Servedio, improved by Zhang, showed that in the PAC setting, quantum examples cannot be much more powerful: the required number of quantum examples is \Omega\Big(\frac{d^{1-\eta}}{\eps} + d + \frac{\log(1/\delta)}{\eps}\Big)\mbox{ for all }\eta> 0. Our main result is that quantum and classical sample complexity are in fact equal up to constant factors in both the PAC and agnostic models. We give two approaches. The first is a fairly simple information-theoretic argument that yields the above two classical bounds and yields the same bounds for quantum sample complexity up to a \log(d/\eps) factor. We then give a second approach that avoids the log-factor loss, based on analyzing the behavior of the "Pretty Good Measurement" on the quantum state identification problems that correspond to learning. This shows classical and quantum sample complexity are equal up to constant factors.Comment: 31 pages LaTeX. Arxiv abstract shortened to fit in their 1920-character limit. Version 3: many small changes, no change in result

Certainty and Uncertainty in Quantum Information Processing

This survey, aimed at information processing researchers, highlights intriguing but lesser known results, corrects misconceptions, and suggests research areas. Themes include: certainty in quantum algorithms; the "fewer worlds" theory of quantum mechanics; quantum learning; probability theory versus quantum mechanics.Comment: Invited paper accompanying invited talk to AAAI Spring Symposium 2007. Comments, corrections, and suggestions would be most welcom