Mykolas Sveistrys

Kaitlin Gili, Mykolas Sveistrys, Chris Ballance

Due to the linearity of quantum mechanics, it remains a challenge to design quantum generative machine learning models that embed non-linear activations into the evolution of the statevector. However, some of the most successful classical generative models, such as those based on neural networks, involve highly non-linear dynamics for quality training. In this paper, we explore the effect of these dynamics in quantum generative modeling by introducing a model that adds non-linear activations via a neural network structure onto the standard Born Machine framework - the Quantum Neuron Born Machine (QNBM). To achieve this, we utilize a previously introduced Quantum Neuron subroutine, which is a repeat-until-success circuit with mid-circuit measurements and classical control. After introducing the QNBM, we investigate how its performance depends on network size, by training a 3-layer QNBM with 4 output neurons and various input and hidden layer sizes. We then compare our non-linear QNBM to the linear Quantum Circuit Born Machine (QCBM). We allocate similar time and memory resources to each model, such that the only major difference is the qubit overhead required by the QNBM. With gradient-based training, we show that while both models can easily learn a trivial uniform probability distribution, on a more challenging class of distributions, the QNBM achieves an almost 3x smaller error rate than a QCBM with a similar number of tunable parameters. We therefore provide evidence that suggests that non-linearity is a useful resource in quantum generative models, and we put forth the QNBM as a new model with good generative performance and potential for quantum advantage.

Kaitlin Gili, Rohan S. Kumar, Mykolas Sveistrys et al.

Recent work has demonstrated the utility of introducing non-linearity through repeat-until-success (RUS) sub-routines into quantum circuits for generative modeling. As a follow-up to this work, we investigate two questions of relevance to the quantum algorithms and machine learning communities: Does introducing this form of non-linearity make the learning model classically simulatable due to the deferred measurement principle? And does introducing this form of non-linearity make the overall model's training more unstable? With respect to the first question, we demonstrate that the RUS sub-routines do not allow us to trivially map this quantum model to a classical one, whereas a model without RUS sub-circuits containing mid-circuit measurements could be mapped to a classical Bayesian network due to the deferred measurement principle of quantum mechanics. This strongly suggests that the proposed form of non-linearity makes the model classically in-efficient to simulate. In the pursuit of the second question, we train larger models than previously shown on three different probability distributions, one continuous and two discrete, and compare the training performance across multiple random trials. We see that while the model is able to perform exceptionally well in some trials, the variance across trials with certain datasets quantifies its relatively poor training stability.