Aakash Ravindra Shinde

Aakash Ravindra Shinde, Charu Jain, Amir Kalev

Quantum convolutional neural network (QCNN), an early application for quantum computers in the NISQ era, has been consistently proven successful as a machine learning (ML) algorithm for several tasks with significant accuracy. Derived from its classical counterpart, QCNN is prone to overfitting. Overfitting is a typical shortcoming of ML models that are trained too closely to the availed training dataset and perform relatively poorly on unseen datasets for a similar problem. In this work we study post-training approaches for mitigating overfitting in QCNNs. We find that a straightforward adaptation of a classical post-training method, known as neuron dropout, to the quantum setting leads to a significant and undesirable consequence: a substantial decrease in success probability of the QCNN. We argue that this effect exposes the crucial role of entanglement in QCNNs and the vulnerability of QCNNs to entanglement loss. Hence, we propose a parameter adaptation method as an alternative method. Our method is computationally efficient and is found to successfully handle overfitting in the test cases.

Aakash Ravindra Shinde, Arianne Meijer - van de Griend, Jukka K. Nurminen

Variational Quantum Algorithms (VQAs) have been extensively researched for applications in Quantum Machine Learning (QML), Optimization, and Molecular simulations. Although designed for Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) devices, VQAs are predominantly evaluated classically due to uncertain results on noisy devices and limited resource availability. Raising concern over the reproducibility of simulated VQAs on noisy hardware. While prior studies indicate that VQAs may exhibit noise resilience in specific parameterized shallow quantum circuits, there are no definitive measures to establish what defines a shallow circuit or the optimal circuit depth for VQAs on a noisy platform. These challenges extend naturally to Variational Quantum Classification (VQC) algorithms, a subclass of VQAs for supervised learning. In this article, we propose a relative entropy-based metric to verify whether a VQC model would perform similarly on a noisy device as it does on simulations. We establish a strong correlation between the average relative entropy difference in classes, transpilation circuit depth, and their performance difference on a noisy quantum device. Our results further indicate that circuit depth alone is insufficient to characterize shallow circuits. We present empirical evidence to support these assertions across a diverse array of techniques for implementing VQC, datasets, and multiple noisy quantum devices.

Aakash Ravindra Shinde, Jukka K. Nurminen

Data dimensionality reduction techniques are often utilized in the implementation of Quantum Machine Learning models to address two significant issues: the constraints of NISQ quantum devices, which are characterized by noise and a limited number of qubits, and the challenge of simulating a large number of qubits on classical devices. It also raises concerns over the scalability of these approaches, as dimensionality reduction methods are slow to adapt to large datasets. In this article, we analyze how data reduction methods affect different QML models. We conduct this experiment over several generated datasets, quantum machine algorithms, quantum data encoding methods, and data reduction methods. All these models were evaluated on the performance metrics like accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score. Our findings have led us to conclude that the usage of data dimensionality reduction methods results in skewed performance metric values, which results in wrongly estimating the actual performance of quantum machine learning models. There are several factors, along with data dimensionality reduction methods, that worsen this problem, such as characteristics of the datasets, classical to quantum information embedding methods, percentage of feature reduction, classical components associated with quantum models, and structure of quantum machine learning models. We consistently observed the difference in the accuracy range of 14% to 48% amongst these models, using data reduction and not using it. Apart from this, our observations have shown that some data reduction methods tend to perform better for some specific data embedding methodologies and ansatz constructions.