Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Quantum Generative Adversarial Networks For Anomaly Detection In High Energy Physics

Published 27 Apr 2023 in quant-ph and hep-ex | (2304.14439v2)

Abstract: The standard model (SM) of particle physics represents a theoretical paradigm for the description of the fundamental forces of nature. Despite its broad applicability, the SM does not enable the description of all physically possible events. The detection of events that cannot be described by the SM, which are typically referred to as anomalous, and the related potential discovery of exotic physical phenomena is a non-trivial task. The challenge becomes even greater with next-generation colliders that will produce even more events with additional levels of complexity. The additional data complexity motivates the search for unsupervised anomaly detection methods that do not require prior knowledge about the underlying models. In this work, we develop such a technique. More explicitly, we employ a quantum generative adversarial network to identify anomalous events. The method learns the background distribution from SM data and, then, determines whether a given event is characteristic for the learned background distribution. The proposed quantum-powered anomaly detection strategy is tested on proof-of-principle examples using numerical simulations and IBM Quantum processors. We find that the quantum generative techniques using ten times fewer training data samples can yield comparable accuracy to the classical counterpart for the detection of the Graviton and Higgs particles. Additionally, we empirically compute the capacity of the quantum model and observe an improved expressivity compared to its classical counterpart.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (68)
  1. F. E. Grubbs, “Procedures for detecting outlying observations in samples,” Technometrics, vol. 11, no. 1, 1969.
  2. S. Rajasegarar, C. Leckie, and M. Palaniswami, “Anomaly detection in wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 15, no. 4, 2008.
  3. R. Zuech, T. M. Khoshgoftaar, and R. Wald, “Intrusion detection and big heterogeneous data: a survey,” Journal of Big Data, vol. 2, no. 1, 2015.
  4. G. Quellec, G. Cazuguel, B. Cochener, and M. Lamard, “Multiple-instance learning for anomaly detection in digital mammography,” Ieee transactions on medical imaging, vol. 35, no. 7, 2016.
  5. G. Apollinari, I. Béjar Alonso, O. Brüning, P. Fessia, M. Lamont, L. Rossi, and L. Tavian, “High-luminosity large hadron collider. technical design report v. 0.1,” Fermi National Accelerator Lab, Tech. Rep., 2017.
  6. G. Agliardi, M. Grossi, M. Pellen, and E. Prati, “Quantum integration of elementary particle processes,” Physics Letters B, vol. 832, 2022.
  7. W. Guan, G. Perdue, A. Pesah, M. Schuld, K. Terashi, S. Vallecorsa, and J.-R. Vlimant, “Quantum machine learning in high energy physics,” Machine Learning: Science and Technology, vol. 2, no. 1, 2021.
  8. C. Tüysüz, C. Rieger, K. Novotny, B. Demirköz, D. Dobos, K. Potamianos, S. Vallecorsa, J.-R. Vlimant, and R. Forster, “Hybrid quantum classical graph neural networks for particle track reconstruction,” Quantum Machine Intelligence, vol. 3, 2021.
  9. C. Tüysüz, F. Carminati, B. Demirköz, D. Dobos, F. Fracas, K. Novotny, K. Potamianos, S. Vallecorsa, and J.-R. Vlimant, “Particle track reconstruction with quantum algorithms,” in EPJ Web of Conferences, vol. 245.   EDP Sciences, 2020.
  10. K. Terashi, M. Kaneda, T. Kishimoto, M. Saito, R. Sawada, and J. Tanaka, “Event classification with quantum machine learning in high-energy physics,” Computing and Software for Big Science, vol. 5, 2021.
  11. CDF Collaboration, T. Aaltonen, S. Amerio, D. Amidei, A. Anastassov, A. Annovi, J. Antos, G. Apollinari, J. Appel, T. Arisawa et al., “High-precision measurement of the W boson mass with the CDF II detector,” Science, vol. 376, no. 6589, 2022.
  12. P. Baldi, P. Sadowski, and D. Whiteson, “Searching for exotic particles in high-energy physics with deep learning,” Nature communications, vol. 5, no. 1, 2014.
  13. A. Chakraborty, S. H. Lim, and M. M. Nojiri, “Interpretable deep learning for two-prong jet classification with jet spectra,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2019, no. 7, 2019.
  14. J. Ren, D. Wang, L. Wu, J. M. Yang, and M. Zhang, “Detecting an axion-like particle with machine learning at the LHC,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2021, no. 11, 2021.
  15. H. Lv, D. Wang, and L. Wu, “Deep learning jet images as a probe of light Higgsino dark matter at the LHC,” Physical Review D, vol. 106, no. 5, 2022.
  16. B. Nachman, “Anomaly detection for physics analysis and less than supervised learning,” in Artificial Intelligence for High Energy Physics.   World Scientific, 2022.
  17. G. Aad, B. Abbott, D. C. Abbott, A. A. Abud, K. Abeling, D. K. Abhayasinghe, S. H. Abidi, O. AbouZeid, N. L. Abraham, H. Abramowicz et al., “Dijet Resonance Search with Weak Supervision Using s=13𝑠13\sqrt{s}=13square-root start_ARG italic_s end_ARG = 13 TeV pp Collisions in the ATLAS Detector,” Physical review letters, vol. 125, no. 13, 2020.
  18. CMS Collaboration, A. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan, W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, T. Bergauer, M. Dragicevic, J. Erö, A. E. Del Valle, R. Frühwirth et al., “MUSiC: a model-unspecific search for new physics in proton–proton collisions at s=13𝑠13\sqrt{s}=13square-root start_ARG italic_s end_ARG = 13 TeV,” The European Physical Journal C, vol. 81, 2021.
  19. G. Kasieczka, B. Nachman, D. Shih, O. Amram, A. Andreassen, K. Benkendorfer, B. Bortolato, G. Brooijmans, F. Canelli, J. H. Collins et al., “The LHC Olympics 2020 a community challenge for anomaly detection in high energy physics,” Reports on progress in physics, vol. 84, no. 12, 2021.
  20. T. Aarrestad, M. van Beekveld, M. Bona, A. Boveia, S. Caron, J. Davies, A. De Simone, C. Doglioni, J. Duarte, A. Farbin et al., “The dark machines anomaly score challenge: benchmark data and model independent event classification for the lhc,” SciPost Physics, vol. 12, no. 1, 2022.
  21. K. Fraser, S. Homiller, R. K. Mishra, B. Ostdiek, and M. D. Schwartz, “Challenges for unsupervised anomaly detection in particle physics,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2022, no. 3, 2022.
  22. A. Andreassen, I. Feige, C. Frye, and M. D. Schwartz, “JUNIPR: a framework for unsupervised machine learning in particle physics,” The European Physical Journal C, vol. 79, 2019.
  23. T. Dorigo, M. Fumanelli, C. Maccani, M. Mojsovska, G. C. Strong, and B. Scarpa, “RanBox: anomaly detection in the copula space,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2023, no. 1, 2023.
  24. T. Schlegl, P. Seeböck, S. M. Waldstein, U. Schmidt-Erfurth, and G. Langs, “Unsupervised anomaly detection with generative adversarial networks to guide marker discovery,” in Information Processing in Medical Imaging: 25th International Conference.   Springer, 2017.
  25. I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y. Bengio, “Generative adversarial networks,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 63, no. 11, 2020.
  26. I. Goodfellow, “NIPS 2016 tutorial: Generative adversarial networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.00160, 2016.
  27. T. Schlegl, P. Seeböck, S. M. Waldstein, G. Langs, and U. Schmidt-Erfurth, “f-AnoGAN: Fast unsupervised anomaly detection with generative adversarial networks,” Medical image analysis, vol. 54, 2019.
  28. E. L. Denton, S. Chintala, R. Fergus et al., “Deep generative image models using a laplacian pyramid of adversarial networks,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 28, 2015.
  29. A. Radford, L. Metz, and S. Chintala, “Unsupervised representation learning with deep convolutional generative adversarial networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06434, 2015.
  30. S. Lloyd and C. Weedbrook, “Quantum generative adversarial learning,” Physical review letters, vol. 121, no. 4, 2018.
  31. P.-L. Dallaire-Demers and N. Killoran, “Quantum generative adversarial networks,” Physical Review A, vol. 98, no. 1, 2018.
  32. A. Abbas, D. Sutter, C. Zoufal, A. Lucchi, A. Figalli, and S. Woerner, “The power of quantum neural networks,” Nature Computational Science, vol. 1, no. 6, 2021.
  33. O. Berezniuk, A. Figalli, R. Ghigliazza, and K. Musaelian, “A scale-dependent notion of effective dimension,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.10872, 2020.
  34. J. J. Rissanen, “Fisher information and stochastic complexity,” IEEE transactions on information theory, vol. 42, no. 1, 1996.
  35. A. Kadurin, S. Nikolenko, K. Khrabrov, A. Aliper, and A. Zhavoronkov, “druGAN: an advanced generative adversarial autoencoder model for de novo generation of new molecules with desired molecular properties in silico,” Molecular pharmaceutics, vol. 14, no. 9, 2017.
  36. N. Killoran, L. J. Lee, A. Delong, D. Duvenaud, and B. J. Frey, “Generating and designing DNA with deep generative models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.06148, 2017.
  37. K. Kurach, M. Lučić, X. Zhai, M. Michalski, and S. Gelly, “A large-scale study on regularization and normalization in GANs,” in International conference on machine learning.   PMLR, 2019.
  38. H. Robbins and S. Monro, “A stochastic approximation method,” The annals of mathematical statistics, 1951.
  39. D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014.
  40. S. J. Reddi, S. Kale, and S. Kumar, “On the convergence of adam and beyond,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09237, 2019.
  41. C. Zoufal, A. Lucchi, and S. Woerner, “Quantum generative adversarial networks for learning and loading random distributions,” npj Quantum Information, vol. 5, no. 1, 2019.
  42. I. Kerenidis and A. Prakash, “Quantum gradient descent for linear systems and least squares,” Physical Review A, vol. 101, no. 2, 2020.
  43. M. Schuld, V. Bergholm, C. Gogolin, J. Izaac, and N. Killoran, “Evaluating analytic gradients on quantum hardware,” Physical Review A, vol. 99, no. 3, 2019.
  44. K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii, “Quantum circuit learning,” Physical Review A, vol. 98, no. 3, 2018.
  45. J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, “Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes,” Nature communications, vol. 9, no. 1, 2018.
  46. C. Ortiz Marrero, M. Kieferová, and N. Wiebe, “Entanglement-induced barren plateaus,” PRX Quantum, vol. 2, Oct 2021.
  47. M. Cerezo, A. Sone, T. Volkoff, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, “Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits,” Nature communications, vol. 12, no. 1, 2021.
  48. S. Thanasilp, S. Wang, M. Cerezo, and Z. Holmes, “Exponential concentration and untrainability in quantum kernel methods,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.11060, 2022.
  49. F. Tacchino, S. Mangini, P. K. Barkoutsos, C. Macchiavello, D. Gerace, I. Tavernelli, and D. Bajoni, “Variational learning for quantum artificial neural networks,” IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 2, 2021.
  50. O. Knapp, O. Cerri, G. Dissertori, T. Q. Nguyen, M. Pierini, and J.-R. Vlimant, “Adversarially Learned Anomaly Detection on CMS Open Data: re-discovering the top quark,” The European Physical Journal Plus, vol. 136, no. 2, 2021.
  51. A. Buckley, J. Butterworth, S. Gieseke, D. Grellscheid, S. Höche, H. Hoeth, F. Krauss, L. Lönnblad, E. Nurse, P. Richardson et al., “General-purpose event generators for LHC physics,” Physics Reports, vol. 504, no. 5, 2011.
  52. J. De Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaitre, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi, “DELPHES 3: a modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2014, no. 2, 2014.
  53. N. Bakhet, M. Y. Khlopov, and T. Hussein, “Phenomenology of large extra dimensions models at hadrons colliders using monte carlo techniques (spin-2 graviton),” arXiv preprint arXiv:1507.03888, 2015.
  54. CMS collaboration (2016). Simulated dataset VBFHiggs0MToBB_M-125p6_7TeV-JHUGenV4-pythia6-tauola in AODSIM format for 2011 collision data (BSM Higgs). CERN Open Data Portal. DOI:10.7483/OPENDATA.CMS.3R3P.5JYR.
  55. CMS collaboration (2016). Simulated dataset Graviton2BPqqbarToZZTo4L_M-125p6_7TeV-JHUGenV3-pythia6 in AODSIM format for 2011 collision data (BSM Higgs). CERN Open Data Portal. DOI:10.7483/OPENDATA.CMS.SZWT.H9MC.
  56. O. Cerri, T. Q. Nguyen, M. Pierini, M. Spiropulu, and J.-R. Vlimant, “Variational autoencoders for new physics mining at the lhc,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2019, no. 5, 2019.
  57. H. Hotelling, “Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components.” Journal of educational psychology, vol. 24, no. 6, 1933.
  58. E. Grant, M. Benedetti, S. Cao, A. Hallam, J. Lockhart, V. Stojevic, A. G. Green, and S. Severini, “Hierarchical quantum classifiers,” npj Quantum Information, vol. 4, no. 1, 2018.
  59. E. Stoudenmire and D. J. Schwab, “Supervised learning with tensor networks,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 29, 2016.
  60. S. Cao, L. Wossnig, B. Vlastakis, P. Leek, and E. Grant, “Cost-function embedding and dataset encoding for machine learning with parametrized quantum circuits,” Physical Review A, vol. 101, no. 5, 2020.
  61. Qiskit contributors, “Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing,” 2023.
  62. J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 18, no. 2, 2016.
  63. M. Benedetti, E. Lloyd, S. Sack, and M. Fiorentini, “Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 4, no. 4, 2019.
  64. M. A. Nielsen and I. Chuang, “Quantum computation and quantum information,” 2002.
  65. J. A. Hanley and B. J. McNeil, “The meaning and use of the area under a ROC curve.” Radiology, vol. 143, no. 1, 1982.
  66. E. R. DeLong, D. M. DeLong, and D. L. Clarke-Pearson, “Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach,” Biometrics, 1988.
  67. J. Schuhmacher, L. Boggia, V. Belis, E. Puljak, M. Grossi, M. Pierini, S. Vallecorsa, F. Tacchino, P. Barkoutsos, and I. Tavernelli, “Unravelling physics beyond the standard model with classical and quantum anomaly detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.10787, 2023.
  68. K. A. Woźniak, V. Belis, E. Puljak, P. Barkoutsos, G. Dissertori, M. Grossi, M. Pierini, F. Reiter, I. Tavernelli, and S. Vallecorsa, “Quantum anomaly detection in the latent space of proton collision events at the LHC,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.10780, 2023.
Citations (7)

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.