Benchmarking Quantum Hardware for Training of Fully Visible Boltzmann Machines
This work addresses the challenge of accelerating machine learning training for complex models using quantum hardware, though it is incremental as it builds on existing quantum annealing methods applied to a specific domain.
The study tackled the problem of training fully visible Boltzmann machines using quantum annealing hardware, finding that quantum distributions differ from classical ones but still enable effective training with standard gradient updates. For problems with high-energy barriers, QA-based seeding improved gradient accuracy and learning speed over classical methods like contrastive divergence, with raw QA samples achieving similar gains.
Quantum annealing (QA) is a hardware-based heuristic optimization and sampling method applicable to discrete undirected graphical models. While similar to simulated annealing, QA relies on quantum, rather than thermal, effects to explore complex search spaces. For many classes of problems, QA is known to offer computational advantages over simulated annealing. Here we report on the ability of recent QA hardware to accelerate training of fully visible Boltzmann machines. We characterize the sampling distribution of QA hardware, and show that in many cases, the quantum distributions differ significantly from classical Boltzmann distributions. In spite of this difference, training (which seeks to match data and model statistics) using standard classical gradient updates is still effective. We investigate the use of QA for seeding Markov chains as an alternative to contrastive divergence (CD) and persistent contrastive divergence (PCD). Using $k=50$ Gibbs steps, we show that for problems with high-energy barriers between modes, QA-based seeds can improve upon chains with CD and PCD initializations. For these hard problems, QA gradient estimates are more accurate, and allow for faster learning. Furthermore, and interestingly, even the case of raw QA samples (that is, $k=0$) achieved similar improvements. We argue that this relates to the fact that we are training a quantum rather than classical Boltzmann distribution in this case. The learned parameters give rise to hardware QA distributions closely approximating classical Boltzmann distributions that are hard to train with CD/PCD.