- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review Applied

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Optimal Quantum Dataset for Learning a Unitary Transformation

Zhan Yu, Xuanqiang Zhao, Benchi Zhao, and Xin Wang*

  • Institute for Quantum Computing, Baidu Research, Beijing 100193, China

  • *wangxin73@baidu.com
PDF

Phys. Rev. Applied 19, 034017 – Published 6 March, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.19.034017

Abstract

Unitary transformations formulate the time evolution of quantum states. How to learn a unitary transformation efficiently is a fundamental problem in quantum machine learning. The most natural and leading strategy is to train a quantum machine learning model based on a quantum dataset. Although the presence of more training data results in better models, using too much data reduces the efficiency of training. In this work, we solve the problem on the minimum size of sufficient quantum datasets for learning a unitary transformation exactly, which reveals the power and limitation of quantum data. First, we prove that the minimum size of a dataset with pure states is 2n for learning an n-qubit unitary transformation. To fully explore the capability of quantum data, we introduce a practical quantum dataset consisting of n+1 elementary tensor product states that are sufficient for exact training. The main idea is to simplify the structure utilizing decoupling, which leads to an exponential improvement in the size of the datasets with pure states. Furthermore, we show that the size of the quantum dataset with mixed states can be reduced to a constant, which yields an optimal quantum dataset for learning a unitary. We showcase the applications of our results in oracle compiling and Hamiltonian simulation. Notably, to accurately simulate a three-qubit one-dimensional nearest-neighbor Heisenberg model, our circuit only uses 96 elementary quantum gates, which is significantly less than 4080 gates in the circuit constructed by the Trotter-Suzuki product formula.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (58)

  1. Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton, Deep learning, Nature 521, 436 (2015).
  2. J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, and Quantum machine learning, Nature 549, 195 (2017).
  3. M. Schuld and F. Petruccione, Supervised Learning with Quantum Computers, Quantum Science and Technology (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018).
  4. S. Arunachalam and R. de Wolf, A Survey of Quantum Learning Theory, ACM SIGACT News 48, 41 (2017).
  5. E. Farhi and H. Neven, Classification with Quantum Neural Networks on Near Term Processors, 1 (2018), ArXiv:1802.06002.
  6. I. Cong, S. Choi, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum convolutional neural networks, Nat. Phys. 15, 1273 (2019).
  7. M. Benedetti, E. Lloyd, S. Sack, and M. Fiorentini, Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models, Quantum Sci. Technol. 4, 043001 (2019).
  8. Z. Yu, H. Yao, M. Li, and X. Wang, in 36th Conf. Neur. Inf. Process. Syst. (NeurIPS 2022) (2022) ArXiv:2205.07848.
  9. J. Romero, J. P. Olson, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quantum autoencoders for efficient compression of quantum data, Quantum Sci. Technol. 2, 045001 (2017).
  10. K. H. Wan, O. Dahlsten, H. Kristjánsson, R. Gardner, and M. S. Kim, Quantum generalisation of feedforward neural networks, npj Quantum Inf. 3, 36 (2017).
  11. C. Cao and X. Wang, Noise-Assisted Quantum Autoencoder, Phys. Rev. Appl. 15, 054012 (2021).
  12. M. Schuld and N. Killoran, Quantum Machine Learning in Feature Hilbert Spaces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 040504 (2019).
  13. H.-Y. Huang, M. Broughton, M. Mohseni, R. Babbush, S. Boixo, H. Neven, and J. R. McClean, Power of data in quantum machine learning, Nat. Commun. 12, 2631 (2021).
  14. Y. Liu, S. Arunachalam, and K. Temme, A rigorous and robust quantum speed-up in supervised machine learning, Nat. Phys. 17, 1013 (2021).
  15. M. Arjovsky, A. Shah, and Y. Bengio, in Proceedings of The 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 48, edited by M. F. Balcan and K. Q. Weinberger (PMLR, New York, New York, USA, 2016), p. 1120.
  16. S. L. Hyland and G. Rätsch, in Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI’17 (AAAI Press, 2017), p. 2050.
  17. A. Bisio, G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, S. Facchini, and P. Perinotti, Optimal quantum learning of a unitary transformation, Phys. Rev. A 81, 032324 (2010).
  18. I. Marvian and S. Lloyd, Universal quantum emulator (2016), ArXiv:1606.02734.
  19. K. Heya, Y. Suzuki, Y. Nakamura, and K. Fujii, Variational quantum gate optimization (2018), ArXiv:1810.12745.
  20. S. Khatri, R. LaRose, A. Poremba, L. Cincio, A. T. Sornborger, and P. J. Coles, Quantum-assisted quantum compiling, Quantum 3, 140 (2019).
  21. K. Sharma, S. Khatri, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles, Noise resilience of variational quantum compiling, New J. Phys. 22, 043006 (2020).
  22. T. Jones and S. C. Benjamin, Robust quantum compilation and circuit optimisation via energy minimisation, Quantum 6, 628 (2022).
  23. L. Cincio, Y. Subasi, A. T. Sornborger, and P. J. Coles, Learning the quantum algorithm for state overlap, New J. Phys. 20, 113022 (2018).
  24. K. Beer, D. Bondarenko, T. Farrelly, T. J. Osborne, R. Salzmann, D. Scheiermann, and R. Wolf, Training deep quantum neural networks, Nat. Commun. 11, 808 (2020).
  25. L. Cincio, K. Rudinger, M. Sarovar, and P. J. Coles, Machine Learning of Noise-Resilient Quantum Circuits, PRX Quantum 2, 1 (2021).
  26. M. C. Caro, H.-Y. Huang, M. Cerezo, K. Sharma, A. Sornborger, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Generalization in quantum machine learning from few training data, Nat. Commun. 13, 4919 (2022).
  27. K. Poland, K. Beer, and T. J. Osborne, No free lunch for quantum machine learning, (2020), ArXiv:2003.14103.
  28. K. Sharma, M. Cerezo, Z. Holmes, L. Cincio, A. Sornborger, and P. J. Coles, Reformulation of the No-Free-Lunch Theorem for Entangled Datasets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 070501 (2022).
  29. S. Chakrabarti, Y. Huang, T. Li, S. Feizi, and X. Wu, Quantum Wasserstein generative adversarial networks, (2019), ArXiv:1911.00111.
  30. M.-D. Choi, Completely positive linear maps on complex matrices, Linear Algebra Appl. 10, 285 (1975).
  31. A. Jamiołkowski, Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators, Rep. Math. Phys. 3, 275 (1972).
  32. M. Suzuki, General theory of fractal path integrals with applications to many-body theories and statistical physics, J. Math. Phys. 32, 400 (1991).
  33. L. K. Grover, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, May 22-24, 1996 (1996), p. 212.
  34. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, New York, USA, 2010).
  35. R. Chen, Z. Song, X. Zhao, and X. Wang, Variational quantum algorithms for trace distance and fidelity estimation, Quantum Sci. Technol. 7, 015019 (2021).
  36. H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, J. Watrous, and R. de Wolf, Quantum Fingerprinting, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 167902 (2001).
  37. G. Strang, Linear Algebra and its Applications (Thomson, Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA, 2006).
  38. D. M. Reich, G. Gualdi, and C. P. Koch, Minimum number of input states required for quantum gate characterization, Phys. Rev. A 88, 042309 (2013).
  39. K. Życzkowski and H.-J. Sommers, Induced measures in the space of mixed quantum states, J. Phys. A: Math. General 34, 7111 (2001).
  40. K. Nakaji and N. Yamamoto, Expressibility of the alternating layered ansatz for quantum computation, Quantum 5, 434 (2021).
  41. M. Bilkis, M. Cerezo, G. Verdon, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio, A semi-agnostic ansatz with variable structure for quantum machine learning, (2021), ArXiv:2103.06712.
  42. Paddle Quantum: A quantum machine learning toolkit (2020).
  43. Y. Ma, D. Yu, T. Wu, and H. Wang, PaddlePaddle: An Open-Source Deep Learning Platform from Industrial Practice, Front. Data Domputing 1, 105 (2019).
  44. R. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467 (1982).
  45. A. M. Childs, D. Maslov, Y. Nam, N. J. Ross, and Y. Su, Toward the first quantum simulation with quantum speedup, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 115, 9456 (2018).
  46. P. W. Shor, Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer, SIAM J. Comput. 26, 1484 (1997).
  47. M. Szegedy, in Proceedings of the 45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS ’04 (IEEE Computer Society, USA, 2004), p. 32.
  48. A. Gilyén, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, in Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2019 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2019), p. 193.
  49. S. Endo, Z. Cai, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms and quantum error mitigation, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 90, 032001 (2021).
  50. K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Error Mitigation for Short-Depth Quantum Circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180509 (2017).
  51. A. Strikis, D. Qin, Y. Chen, S. C. Benjamin, and Y. Li, Learning-Based Quantum Error Mitigation, PRX Quantum 2, 040330 (2021).
  52. J. Jiang, K. Wang, and X. Wang, Physical implementability of linear maps and its application in error mitigation, Quantum 5, 600 (2021).
  53. C. Piveteau, D. Sutter, and S. Woerner, Quasiprobability decompositions with reduced sampling overhead, npj Quantum Inf. 8, 12 (2022).
  54. Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Huggins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, Quantum error mitigation, (2022), arXiv preprint ArXiv:2210.00921.
  55. K. Fang, X. Wang, M. Tomamichel, and M. Berta, Quantum channel simulation and the channel’s smooth max-information, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 66, 2129 (2020).
  56. F. Caruso, V. Giovannetti, C. Lupo, and S. Mancini, Quantum channels and memory effects, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 1203 (2014).
  57. M. M. Wilde, Entanglement cost and quantum channel simulation, Phys. Rev. A 98, 042338 (2018).
  58. M. G. Díaz, K. Fang, X. Wang, M. Rosati, M. Skotiniotis, J. Calsamiglia, and A. Winter, Using and reusing coherence to realize quantum processes, Quantum 2, 100 (2018).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Applied 19, 034017– Published 6 March, 2023
  • Received 18 May 2022
  • Revised 22 November 2022
  • Accepted 27 January 2023
Crossmark - Check for updates button

© 2023 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation