Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Quantum Diffusion Models

Published 26 Nov 2023 in quant-ph | (2311.15444v1)

Abstract: We propose a quantum version of a generative diffusion model. In this algorithm, artificial neural networks are replaced with parameterized quantum circuits, in order to directly generate quantum states. We present both a full quantum and a latent quantum version of the algorithm; we also present a conditioned version of these models. The models' performances have been evaluated using quantitative metrics complemented by qualitative assessments. An implementation of a simplified version of the algorithm has been executed on real NISQ quantum hardware.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (51)
  1. “Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics” In International conference on machine learning, 2015, pp. 2256–2265 PMLR
  2. Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain and Pieter Abbeel “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models” In Advances in neural information processing systems 33, 2020, pp. 6840–6851
  3. “Diffusion Models in Vision: A Survey” In IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 45.9, 2023, pp. 10850–10869 DOI: 10.1109/TPAMI.2023.3261988
  4. Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng and Stefano Ermon “Denoising Diffusion Implicit Models”, 2022 arXiv:2010.02502 [cs.LG]
  5. Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling “Auto-encoding variational bayes” In arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013
  6. “Generative adversarial networks” In Communications of the ACM 63.11 ACM New York, NY, USA, 2020, pp. 139–144
  7. “Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation” In Phys. Rev. A 86 American Physical Society, 2012, pp. 032324 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.86.032324
  8. Savvas Varsamopoulos, Ben Criger and Koen Bertels “Decoding small surface codes with feedforward neural networks” In Quantum Science and Technology 3.1 IOP Publishing, 2017, pp. 015004 DOI: 10.1088/2058-9565/aa955a
  9. “Convolutional neural network based decoders for surface codes” In Quantum Information Processing 22.3, 2023, pp. 151 DOI: 10.1007/s11128-023-03898-2
  10. E Knill “Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices” In Nature 434, 2005, pp. 39–44 DOI: 10.1038/nature03350
  11. “High-Threshold Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation with Analog Quantum Error Correction” In Phys. Rev. X 8 American Physical Society, 2018, pp. 021054 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX.8.021054
  12. John Preskill “Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond” In Quantum 2 Verein zur Förderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften, 2018, pp. 79
  13. Peter W. Shor “Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer” In SIAM Journal on Computing 26.5 Society for Industrial & Applied Mathematics (SIAM), 1997, pp. 1484–1509 DOI: 10.1137/s0097539795293172
  14. “Quantum machine learning” In Nature 549.7671 Springer ScienceBusiness Media LLC, 2017, pp. 195–202 DOI: 10.1038/nature23474
  15. Sau Lan Wu and Shinjae Yoo “Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning for high-energy physics” In Nature Reviews Physics 4.3, 2022, pp. 143–144 DOI: 10.1038/s42254-022-00425-7
  16. “Variational quantum algorithms” In Nature Reviews Physics 3.9 Springer ScienceBusiness Media LLC, 2021, pp. 625–644 DOI: 10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9
  17. “A study of the pulse-based variational quantum eigensolver on cross-resonance based hardware”, 2023 arXiv:2303.02410 [quant-ph]
  18. “Long-Lived Particles Anomaly Detection with Parametrized Quantum Circuits” In Particles 6.1, 2023, pp. 297–311 DOI: 10.3390/particles6010016
  19. Matteo Robbiati, Juan M. Cruz-Martinez and Stefano Carrazza “Determining probability density functions with adiabatic quantum computing” 7 pages, 3 figures, 2023 arXiv: http://cds.cern.ch/record/2853183
  20. “A quantum analytical Adam descent through parameter shift rule using Qibo”, 2022 arXiv:2210.10787 [quant-ph]
  21. Juan M. Cruz-Martinez, Matteo Robbiati and Stefano Carrazza “Multi-variable integration with a variational quantum circuit”, 2023 arXiv:2308.05657 [quant-ph]
  22. “A Quantum Convolutional Neural Network on NISQ Devices”, 2021 arXiv:2104.06918 [quant-ph]
  23. “Simulating quench dynamics on a digital quantum computer with data-driven error mitigation” In Quantum Science and Technology 6.4 IOP Publishing, 2021, pp. 045003 DOI: 10.1088/2058-9565/ac0e7a
  24. “Learning-Based Quantum Error Mitigation” In PRX Quantum 2 American Physical Society, 2021, pp. 040330 DOI: 10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.040330
  25. “Scalable Mitigation of Measurement Errors on Quantum Computers” In PRX Quantum 2 American Physical Society, 2021, pp. 040326 DOI: 10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.040326
  26. “Measurement error mitigation in quantum computers through classical bit-flip correction” In Phys. Rev. A 105 American Physical Society, 2022, pp. 062404 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.105.062404
  27. “Quantum generative adversarial networks” In Physical Review A 98.1 APS, 2018, pp. 012324
  28. “Style-based quantum generative adversarial networks for Monte Carlo events” In Quantum 6 Verein zur Forderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften, 2022, pp. 777 DOI: 10.22331/q-2022-08-17-777
  29. “Quantum variational autoencoder” In Quantum Science and Technology 4.1 IOP Publishing, 2018, pp. 014001
  30. Marco Parigi, Stefano Martina and Filippo Caruso “Quantum-Noise-driven Generative Diffusion Models” In arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12013, 2023
  31. “Generative quantum machine learning via denoising diffusion probabilistic models” In arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05866, 2023
  32. “Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models” In Quantum Science and Technology 4.4 IOP Publishing, 2019, pp. 043001
  33. “Circuit-centric quantum classifiers” In Physical Review A 101.3 APS, 2020, pp. 032308
  34. “Quantum circuit learning” In Physical Review A 98.3 APS, 2018, pp. 032309
  35. “Evaluating analytic gradients on quantum hardware” In Physical Review A 99.3 APS, 2019, pp. 032331
  36. “Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations” In arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.04968, 2018
  37. “Machine learning with quantum computers” Springer, 2021
  38. Maria Schuld, Ryan Sweke and Johannes Jakob Meyer “Effect of data encoding on the expressive power of variational quantum-machine-learning models” In Phys. Rev. A 103 American Physical Society, 2021, pp. 032430 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.103.032430
  39. “An introduction to deep generative modeling” In GAMM-Mitteilungen 44.2 Wiley Online Library, 2021, pp. e202100008
  40. “Deep Unsupervised Learning using Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics”, 2015 arXiv:1503.03585 [cs.LG]
  41. John A. Cortese and Timothy M. Braje “Loading Classical Data into a Quantum Computer”, 2018 arXiv:1803.01958 [quant-ph]
  42. “Stabilization of quantum computations by symmetrization” In SIAM Journal on Computing 26.5 SIAM, 1997, pp. 1541–1557
  43. Michael A Nielsen “The entanglement fidelity and quantum error correction” In arXiv preprint quant-ph/9606012, 1996
  44. Jürgen Schmidhuber “Deep learning in neural networks: An overview” In Neural networks 61 Elsevier, 2015, pp. 85–117
  45. Ian T Jolliffe and Jorge Cadima “Principal component analysis: a review and recent developments” In Philosophical transactions of the royal society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 374.2065 The Royal Society Publishing, 2016, pp. 20150202
  46. Laurens Van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton “Visualizing data using t-SNE.” In Journal of machine learning research 9.11, 2008
  47. Andrew P Bradley “The use of the area under the ROC curve in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms” In Pattern recognition 30.7 Elsevier, 1997, pp. 1145–1159
  48. “Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium” In Advances in neural information processing systems 30, 2017
  49. “Evaluating generative networks using Gaussian mixtures of image features” In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 279–288
  50. “Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes” In Nature communications 9.1 Nature Publishing Group UK London, 2018, pp. 4812
  51. “Dynamics of superconducting qubit relaxation times”, 2022 arXiv:2105.15201 [quant-ph]
Citations (4)

Summary

  • The paper introduces innovative quantum diffusion models that use parameterized quantum circuits to generate quantum states directly.
  • It proposes a full quantum model alongside a latent quantum-classical hybrid variant, incorporating bottleneck architectures and infidelity loss for training.
  • Simulation and IBM hardware experiments reveal improved sample quality and parameter reduction compared to classical diffusion models.

Quantum Diffusion Models

This essay analyzes the manuscript "Quantum Diffusion Models" (2311.15444), which proposes innovative quantum adaptations of classical diffusion models, leveraging parameterized quantum circuits (PQC) to facilitate the direct generation of quantum states. The paper introduces a full quantum model and a latent quantum-classical hybrid model, presenting results of implementations on both simulations and actual NISQ hardware. The findings suggest potential enhancements over classical counterparts in terms of parameter efficiency and capabilities for generating quantum data.

Background and Methodology

Parameterized Quantum Circuits

At the foundation of the proposed quantum diffusion models is the use of PQCs, which are analogous to artificial neural networks (ANNs) but operate within the quantum domain. A typical PQC comprises layers of rotation gates with trainable parameters, interspersed with C-NOT gates to induce qubit entanglement. Figure 1

Figure 1: Example of a PQC layer ansatz for three qubits. The rotation gates contain classical, trainable parameters while the C-NOT gates create entanglement between qubits.

The PQCs in this study were trained using classical optimization techniques relying on simulation environments due to the noise constraints of current quantum hardware. This constraint necessitates an amplitude encoding scheme to translate classical data into quantum states, allowing for exponential feature encoding.

Classical Diffusion Models

Diffusion models traditionally focus on mapping an arbitrary distribution to a tractable Gaussian distribution through a forward Markov chain, followed by the training of an ANN to approximate the reverse process. The adoption of parameterized quantum circuits modifies this paradigm due to direct quantum state manipulation, circumventing intermediate classical processes that are computationally expensive on quantum hardware.

Quantum Diffusion Model

Model Architecture

The quantum diffusion model replaces classical neural network components with PQCs. The quantum model's architecture is divided into a full quantum model designed for directly generating quantum states and a latent model that employs a classical autoencoder. Figure 2

Figure 2: Representation of the bottleneck (left) and reverse-bottleneck architectures (right) using m=1m=1. Each unitary transformation block employs a layered structure.

To mitigate the limitations imposed by existing quantum hardware, particularly regarding qubit decoherence and connectivity, innovative PQC architectures are introduced. The "bottleneck" and "reverse-bottleneck" configurations significantly influence performance, where intermediate measurements and ancillary qubit interactions replace conventional layer transformations.

Model Training

Training in a quantum context involves the parameterized transformation of qubit states. Here, infidelity loss is employed as the optimization criterion—a choice that aligns with quantum computing methodologies by utilizing fidelity tests.

Simulation and Hardware Results

Simulation Insights

Simulations on MNIST data, downscaled for quantum compatibility, reveal the potential of quantum diffusion models to achieve outcomes with fewer parameters, observing improved sample quality in latent spaces compared to classical models. For instance, the use of label qubits in conditioned models significantly enhances discriminative sampling. Figure 3

Figure 3: Samples generated from the full quantum model.

Hardware Implementation

The implementation on IBM's quantum device, ibm_hanoi, addresses connectivity and error constraints through strategic reductions in PQC complexity, facilitated by a reduced number of denoising steps and modified gate arrangements. Figure 4

Figure 4: Architecture of IBM_hanoi quantum computer. The C-NOT connectivity and T1 error probabilities are highlighted.

Empirical results illustrate the enduring challenge of noise, particularly its decoherence effects, but also demonstrate the hardware's capacity to approximate classical results accurately under proper configurations.

Conclusion

The "Quantum Diffusion Models" paper lays the groundwork for future advancements in quantum generative modeling, particularly highlighting the opportunities in parameter minimization and scalability through quantum state representation. The integration of quantum methods provides a path for potential breakthroughs in processing power and complexity, harboring implications for data domains unreachable by classical algorithms. As quantum hardware progresses, innovations in noise mitigation and full quantum training regimes are anticipated to drive further developments in this area.

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.

Collections

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