Quantum machine learning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Quantum machine learning is an emerging interdisciplinary research area at the intersection of quantum physics and machine learning.[1][2][3][4][5] The most common use of the term refers to machine learning algorithms for the analysis of classical data executed on a quantum computer.[6][7][8] This includes hybrid methods that involve both classical and quantum processing, where computationally expensive subroutines are outsourced to a quantum device.[9][10][11] Furthermore, quantum algorithms can be used to analyze quantum states instead of classical data.[12] Beyond quantum computing, the term "quantum machine learning" is often associated with machine learning methods applied to data generated from quantum experiments, such as learning quantum phase transitions[13][14] or creating new quantum experiments.[15] Quantum machine learning also extends to a branch of research that explores methodological and structural similarities between certain physical systems and learning systems, in particular neural networks. For example, some mathematical and numerical techniques from quantum physics carry over to classical deep learning and vice versa.[16][17][18] Finally, researchers investigate more abstract notions of learning theory with respect to quantum information, sometimes referred to as "quantum learning theory".[19]

Four different approaches to combine the disciplines of quantum computing and machine learning.[20][21] The first letter refers to whether the system under study is classical or quantum, while the second letter defines whether a classical or quantum information processing device is used.

Machine learning with quantum computers[edit]

Quantum-enhanced machine learning refers to quantum algorithms that solve tasks in machine learning, thereby improving a classical machine learning method. Such algorithms typically require one to encode the given classical dataset into a quantum computer to make it accessible for quantum information processing. After this, quantum information processing routines can be applied and the result of the quantum computation is read out by measuring the quantum system. For example, the outcome of the measurement of a qubit could reveal the result of a binary classification task. While many proposals of quantum machine learning algorithms are still purely theoretical and require a full-scale universal quantum computer to be tested, others have been implemented on small-scale or special purpose quantum devices.

Linear algebra simulation with quantum amplitudes[edit]

A number of quantum algorithms for machine learning are based on the idea of amplitude encoding, that is, to associate the amplitudes of a quantum state with the inputs and outputs of computations.[22][23][24][25] Since a state of qubits is described by complex amplitudes, this information encoding can allow for an exponentially compact representation. Intuitively, this corresponds to associating a discrete probability distribution over binary random variables with a classical vector. The goal of algorithms based on amplitude encoding is to formulate quantum algorithms whose resources grow polynomially in the number of qubits , which amounts to a logarithmic growth in the number of amplitudes and thereby the dimension of the input.

Many quantum machine learning algorithms in this category are based on variations of the quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations[26] which, under specific conditions, performs a matrix inversion using an amount of physical resources growing only logarithmically in the dimensions of the matrix. One of these conditions is that a Hamiltonian which entrywise corresponds to the matrix can be simulated efficiently, which is known to be possible if the matrix is sparse[27] or low rank.[28] For reference, any known classical algorithm for matrix inversion requires a number of operations that grows at least quadratically in the dimension of the matrix.

Quantum matrix inversion can be applied to machine learning methods in which the training reduces to solving a linear system of equations, for example in least-squares linear regression,[23][24] the least-squares version of support vector machines,[22] and Gaussian processes.[25]

A crucial bottleneck of methods that simulate linear algebra computations with the amplitudes of quantum states is state preparation, which often requires one to initialise a quantum system in a state whose amplitudes reflect the features of the entire dataset. Although efficient methods for state preparation are known for specific cases,[29][30] this step easily hides the complexity of the task.[31]

Quantum machine learning algorithms based on Grover search[edit]

Another approach to improving classical machine learning with quantum information processing uses amplitude amplification methods based on Grover's search algorithm, which has been shown to solve unstructured search problems with a quadratic speedup compared to classical algorithms. These quantum routines can be employed for learning algorithms that translate into an unstructured search task, as can be done, for instance, in the case of the k-medians[32] and the k-nearest neighbors algorithms.[6] Another application is a quadratic speedup in the training of perceptron.[33]

Amplitude amplification is often combined with quantum walks to achieve the same quadratic speedup. Quantum walks have been proposed to enhance Google's PageRank algorithm[34] as well as the performance of reinforcement learning agents in the projective simulation framework.[35]

Quantum-enhanced reinforcement learning[edit]

Reinforcement learning is a third branch of machine learning, distinct from supervised and unsupervised learning, which also admits quantum enhancements.[36][35][37][38] In quantum-enhanced reinforcement learning, a quantum agent interacts with a classical environment and occasionally receives rewards for its actions, which allows the agent to adapt its behavior—in other words, to learn what to do in order to gain more rewards. In some situations, either because of the quantum processing capability of the agent,[35] or due to the possibility to probe the environment in superpositions,[21] a quantum speedup may be achieved. Implementations of these kinds of protocols in superconducting circuits[39] and in systems of trapped ions[40] have been proposed.

Quantum sampling techniques[edit]

Sampling from high-dimensional probability distributions is at the core of a wide spectrum of computational techniques with important applications across science, engineering, and society. Examples include deep learning, probabilistic programming, and other machine learning and artificial intelligence applications.

A computationally hard problem, which is key for some relevant machine learning tasks, is the estimation of averages over probabilistic models defined in terms of a Boltzmann distribution. Sampling from generic probabilistic models is hard: algorithms relying heavily on sampling are expected to remain intractable no matter how large and powerful classical computing resources become. Even though quantum annealers, like those produced by D-Wave Systems, were designed for challenging combinatorial optimization problems, it has been recently recognized as a potential candidate to speed up computations that rely on sampling by exploiting quantum effects.[41]

Some research groups have recently explored the use of quantum annealing hardware for training Boltzmann machines and deep neural networks.[42][43][44][45] The standard approach to training Boltzmann machines relies on the computation of certain averages that can be estimated by standard sampling techniques, such as Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms. Another possibility is to rely on a physical process, like quantum annealing, that naturally generates samples from a Boltzmann distribution. The objective is to find the optimal control parameters that best represent the empirical distribution of a given dataset.

The D-Wave 2X system hosted at NASA Ames Research Center has been recently used for the learning of a special class of restricted Boltzmann machines that can serve as a building block for deep learning architectures.[44] Complementary work that appeared roughly simultaneously showed that quantum annealing can be used for supervised learning in classification tasks.[42] The same device was later used to train a fully connected Boltzmann machine to generate, reconstruct, and classify down-scaled, low-resolution handwritten digits, among other synthetic datasets.[43] In both cases, the models trained by quantum annealing had a similar or better performance in terms of quality. The ultimate question that drives this endeavour is whether there is quantum speedup in sampling applications. Experience with the use of quantum annealers for combinatorial optimization suggests the answer is not straightforward.

Inspired by the success of Boltzmann machines based on classical Boltzmann distribution, a new machine learning approach based on quantum Boltzmann distribution of a transverse-field Ising Hamiltonian was recently proposed.[46] Due to the non-commutative nature of quantum mechanics, the training process of the quantum Boltzmann machine can become nontrivial. This problem was, to some extent, circumvented by introducing bounds on the quantum probabilities, allowing the authors to train the model efficiently by sampling. It is possible that a specific type of quantum Boltzmann machine has been trained in the D-Wave 2X by using a learning rule analogous to that of classical Boltzmann machines.[43][45]

Quantum annealing is not the only technology for sampling. In a prepare-and-measure scenario, a universal quantum computer prepares a thermal state, which is then sampled by measurements. This can reduce the time required to train a deep restricted Boltzmann machine, and provide a richer and more comprehensive framework for deep learning than classical computing.[47] The same quantum methods also permit efficient training of full Boltzmann machines and multi-layer, fully connected models and do not have well-known classical counterparts. Relying on an efficient thermal state preparation protocol starting from an arbitrary state, quantum-enhanced Markov logic networks exploit the symmetries and the locality structure of the probabilistic graphical model generated by a first-order logic template.[48] This provides an exponential reduction in computational complexity in probabilistic inference, and, while the protocol relies on a universal quantum computer, under mild assumptions it can be embedded on contemporary quantum annealing hardware.

Quantum neural networks[edit]

Quantum analogues or generalizations of classical neural nets[49] are often referred to as quantum neural networks. The term is claimed by a wide range of approaches, including the implementation and extension of neural networks using photons,[50] layered variational circuits[10] or quantum Ising-type models.[51]

Hidden Quantum Markov Models[edit]

Hidden Quantum Markov Models[52] (HQMMs) are a quantum-enhanced version of classical Hidden Markov Models (HMMs), which are typically used to model sequential data in various fields like robotics and natural language processing. Unlike the approach taken by other quantum-enhanced machine learning algorithms, HQMMs can be viewed as models inspired by quantum mechanics that can be run on classical computers as well.[53] Where classical HMMs use probability vectors to represent hidden 'belief' states, HQMMs use the quantum analogue: density matrices. Recent work has shown that these models can be successfully learned by maximizing the log-likelihood of the given data via classical optimization, and there is some empirical evidence that these models can better model sequential data compared to classical HMMs in practice, although further work is needed to determine exactly when and how these benefits are derived.[53] Additionally, since classical HMMs are a particular kind of Bayes net, an exciting aspect of HQMMs is that the techniques used show how we can perform quantum-analogous Bayesian inference, which should allow for the general construction of the quantum versions of probabilistic graphical models.[53]

Fully quantum machine learning[edit]

In the most general case of quantum machine learning, both the learning device and the system under study, as well as their interaction, are fully quantum. This section gives a few examples of results on this topic.

One class of problem that can benefit from the fully quantum approach is that of 'learning' unknown quantum states, processes or measurements, in the sense that one can subsequently reproduce them on another quantum system. For example, one may wish to learn a measurement that discriminates between two coherent states, given not a classical description of the states to be discriminated, but instead a set of example quantum systems prepared in these states. The naive approach would be to first extract a classical description of the states and then implement an ideal discriminating measurement based on this information. This would only require classical learning. However, one can show that a fully quantum approach is strictly superior in this case.[54] (This also relates to work on quantum pattern matching.[55]) The problem of learning unitary transformations can be approached in a similar way.[56]

Going beyond the specific problem of learning states and transformations, the task of clustering also admits a fully quantum version, wherein both the oracle which returns the distance between data-points and the information processing device which runs the algorithm are quantum.[57] Finally, a general framework spanning supervised, unsupervised and reinforcement learning in the fully quantum setting was introduced in,[21] where it was also shown that the possibility of probing the environment in superpositions permits a quantum speedup in reinforcement learning.

Classical learning applied to quantum systems[edit]

The term quantum machine learning is also used for approaches that apply classical methods of machine learning to the study of quantum systems. A prime example is the use of classical learning techniques to process large amounts of experimental data in order to characterize an unknown quantum system (for instance in the context of quantum information theory and for the development of quantum technologies), but there are also more exotic applications.

The ability to experimentally control and prepare increasingly complex quantum systems brings with it a growing need to turn large and noisy data sets into meaningful information. This is a problem that has already been studied extensively in the classical setting, and consequently, many existing machine learning techniques can be naturally adapted to more efficiently address experimentally relevant problems. For example, Bayesian methods and concepts of algorithmic learning can be fruitfully applied to tackle quantum state classification,[58] Hamiltonian learning,[59] and the characterization of an unknown unitary transformation.[60][61] Other problems that have been addressed with this approach are given in the following list:

  • Identifying an accurate model for the dynamics of a quantum system, through the reconstruction of the Hamiltonian;[62][63][64]
  • Extracting information on unknown states;[65][66][67][58]
  • Learning unknown unitary transformations and measurements;[60][61]
  • Engineering of quantum gates from qubit networks with pairwise interactions, using time dependent[68] or independent[69] Hamiltonians.

However, the characterization of quantum states and processes is not the only application of classical machine learning techniques. Some additional applications include

  • Inferring molecular energies;[70]
  • Automatic generation of new quantum experiments;[71][72]
  • Solving the many-body, static and time-dependent Schrödinger equation;[73]
  • Identifying phase transitions from entanglement spectra;[74]
  • Generating adaptive feedback schemes for quantum metrology.[75]

Quantum learning theory[edit]

Quantum learning theory pursues a mathematical analysis of the quantum generalizations of classical learning models and of the possible speed-ups or other improvements that they may provide. The framework is very similar to that of classical computational learning theory, but the learner in this case is a quantum information processing device, while the data may be either classical or quantum. Quantum learning theory should be contrasted with the quantum-enhanced machine learning discussed above, where the goal was to consider specific problems and to use quantum protocols to improve the time complexity of classical algorithms for these problems. Although quantum learning theory is still under development, partial results in this direction have been obtained.[76]

The starting point in learning theory is typically a concept class, a set of possible concepts. Usually a concept is a function on some domain, such as . For example, the concept class could be the set of disjunctive normal form (DNF) formulas on n bits or the set of Boolean circuits of some constant depth. The goal for the learner is to learn (exactly or approximately) an unknown target concept from this concept class. The learner may be actively interacting with the target concept, or passively receiving samples from it.

In active learning, a learner can make membership queries to the target concept c, asking for its value c(x) on inputs x chosen by the learner. The learner then has to reconstruct the exact target concept, with high probability. In the model of quantum exact learning, the learner can make membership queries in quantum superposition. If the complexity of the learner is measured by the number of membership queries it makes, then quantum exact learners can be polynomially more efficient than classical learners for some concept classes, but not more.[77] If complexity is measured by the amount of time the learner uses, then there are concept classes that can be learned efficiently by quantum learners but not by classical learners (under plausible complexity-theoretic assumptions).[77]

A natural model of passive learning is Valiant's probably approximately correct (PAC) learning. Here the learner receives random examples (x,c(x)), where x is distributed according to some unknown distribution D. The learner's goal is to output a hypothesis function h such that h(x)=c(x) with high probability when x is drawn according to D. The learner has to be able to produce such an 'approximately correct' h for every D and every target concept c in its concept class. We can consider replacing the random examples by potentially more powerful quantum examples . In the PAC model (and the related agnostic model), this doesn't significantly reduce the number of examples needed: for every concept class, classical and quantum sample complexity are the same up to constant factors.[78] However, for learning under some fixed distribution D, quantum examples can be very helpful, for example for learning DNF under the uniform distribution.[79] When considering time complexity, there exist concept classes that can be PAC-learned efficiently by quantum learners, even from classical examples, but not by classical learners (again, under plausible complexity-theoretic assumptions).[77]

This passive learning type is also the most common scheme in supervised learning: a learning algorithm typically takes the training examples fixed, without the ability to query the label of unlabelled examples. Outputting a hypothesis h is a step of induction. Classically, an inductive model splits into a training and an application phase: the model parameters are estimated in the training phase, and the learned model is applied an arbitrary many times in the application phase. In the asymptotic limit of the number of applications, this splitting of phases is also present with quantum resources.[80]

Implementations and experiments[edit]

The earliest experiments were conducted using the adiabatic D-Wave quantum computer, for instance, to detect cars in digital images using regularized boosting with a nonconvex objective function in a demonstration in 2009.[81] Many experiments followed on the same architecture, and leading tech companies have shown interest in the potential of quantum machine learning for future technological implementations. In 2013, Google Research, NASA, and the Universities Space Research Association launched the Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab which explores the use of the adiabatic D-Wave quantum computer.[82][83] A more recent example trained a probabilistic generative models with arbitrary pairwise connectivity, showing that their model is capable of generating handwritten digits as well as reconstructing noisy images of bars and stripes and handwritten digits.[43]

Using a different annealing technology based on nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), a quantum Hopfield network was implemented in 2009 that mapped the input data and memorized data to Hamiltonians, allowing the use of adiabatic quantum computation.[84] NMR technology also enables universal quantum computing[citation needed], and it was used for the first experimental implementation of a quantum support vector machine to distinguish hand written number ‘6’ and ‘9’ on a liquid-state quantum computer in 2015.[85] The training data involved the pre-processing of the image which maps them to normalized 2-dimensional vectors to represent the images as the states of a qubit. The two entries of the vector are the vertical and horizontal ratio of the pixel intensity of the image. Once the vectors are defined on the feature space, the quantum support vector machine was implemented to classify the unknown input vector. The readout avoids costly quantum tomography by reading out the final state in terms of direction (up/down) of the NMR signal.

Photonic implementations are attracting more attention,[49] not the least because they do not require extensive cooling. Simultaneous spoken digit and speaker recognition and chaotic time-series prediction were demonstrated at data rates beyond 1 gigabyte per second in 2013.[86] Using non-linear photonics to implement an all-optical linear classifier, a perceptron model was capable of learning the classification boundary iteratively from training data through a feedback rule.[87] A core building block in many learning algorithms is to calculate the distance between two vectors: this was first experimentally demonstrated for up to eight dimensions using entangled qubits in a photonic quantum computer in 2015.[88]

Recently, based on a neuromimetic approach, a novel ingredient has been added to the field of quantum machine learning, in the form of a so-called quantum memristor, a quantized model of the standard classical memristor.[89] This device can be constructed by means of a tunable resistor, weak measurements on the system, and a classical feed-forward mechanism. An implementation of a quantum memristor in superconducting circuits has been proposed,[90] and an experiment with quantum dots performed.[91] A quantum memristor would implement nonlinear interactions in the quantum dynamics which would aid the search for a fully functional quantum neural network.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Schuld, Maria; Petruccione, Francesco (2018). Supervised Learning with Quantum Computers. Quantum Science and Technology. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-96424-9. ISBN 978-3-319-96423-2. 
  2. ^ Schuld, Maria; Sinayskiy, Ilya; Petruccione, Francesco (2014). "An introduction to quantum machine learning". Contemporary Physics. 56 (2): 172–185. arXiv:1409.3097Freely accessible. Bibcode:2015ConPh..56..172S. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.740.5622Freely accessible. doi:10.1080/00107514.2014.964942. 
  3. ^ Wittek, Peter (2014). Quantum Machine Learning: What Quantum Computing Means to Data Mining. Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-800953-6. 
  4. ^ Adcock, Jeremy; Allen, Euan; Day, Matthew; Frick, Stefan; Hinchliff, Janna; Johnson, Mack; Morley-Short, Sam; Pallister, Sam; Price, Alasdair; Stanisic, Stasja (2015). "Advances in quantum machine learning". arXiv:1512.02900Freely accessible [quant-ph]. 
  5. ^ Biamonte, Jacob; Wittek, Peter; Pancotti, Nicola; Rebentrost, Patrick; Wiebe, Nathan; Lloyd, Seth (2016). "Quantum machine learning". Nature. 549 (7671): 195–202. arXiv:1611.09347Freely accessible. Bibcode:2017Natur.549..195B. doi:10.1038/nature23474. PMID 28905917. 
  6. ^ a b Wiebe, Nathan; Kapoor, Ashish; Svore, Krysta (2014). "Quantum Algorithms for Nearest-Neighbor Methods for Supervised and Unsupervised Learning". Quantum Information & Computation. 15 (3): 0318–0358. arXiv:1401.2142Freely accessible. Bibcode:2014arXiv1401.2142W. 
  7. ^ Lloyd, Seth; Mohseni, Masoud; Rebentrost, Patrick (2013). "Quantum algorithms for supervised and unsupervised machine learning". arXiv:1307.0411Freely accessible [quant-ph]. 
  8. ^ Yoo, Seokwon; Bang, Jeongho; Lee, Changhyoup; Lee, Jinhyoung (2014). "A quantum speedup in machine learning: Finding a N-bit Boolean function for a classification". New Journal of Physics. 16 (10): 103014. arXiv:1303.6055Freely accessible. Bibcode:2014NJPh...16j3014Y. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/10/103014. 
  9. ^ Benedetti, Marcello; Realpe-Gómez, John; Biswas, Rupak; Perdomo-Ortiz, Alejandro (2017-11-30). "Quantum-Assisted Learning of Hardware-Embedded Probabilistic Graphical Models". Physical Review X. 7 (4). arXiv:1609.02542Freely accessible. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.7.041052. ISSN 2160-3308. 
  10. ^ a b Farhi, Edward; Neven, Hartmut (2018-02-16). "Classification with Quantum Neural Networks on Near Term Processors". arXiv:1802.06002Freely accessible [quant-ph]. 
  11. ^ Schuld, Maria; Bocharov, Alex; Svore, Krysta; Wiebe, Nathan (2018-04-02). "Circuit-centric quantum classifiers". arXiv:1804.00633Freely accessible [quant-ph]. 
  12. ^ Yu, Shang; Albarran-Arriagada, F.; Retamal, J. C.; Wang, Yi-Tao; Liu, Wei; Ke, Zhi-Jin; Meng, Yu; Li, Zhi-Peng; Tang, Jian-Shun (2018-08-28). "Reconstruction of a Photonic Qubit State with Quantum Reinforcement Learning". arXiv:1808.09241Freely accessible [quant-ph]. 
  13. ^ Broecker, Peter; Assaad, Fakher F.; Trebst, Simon (2017-07-03). "Quantum phase recognition via unsupervised machine learning". arXiv:1707.00663Freely accessible [cond-mat.str-el]. 
  14. ^ Huembeli, Patrick; Dauphin, Alexandre; Wittek, Peter (1341). "Identifying Quantum Phase Transitions with Adversarial Neural Networks". Physical Review B. 97 (13). arXiv:1710.08382Freely accessible. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.97.134109. ISSN 2469-9950. 
  15. ^ Melnikov, Alexey A.; Nautrup, Hendrik Poulsen; Krenn, Mario; Dunjko, Vedran; Tiersch, Markus; Zeilinger, Anton; Briegel, Hans J. (1221). "Active learning machine learns to create new quantum experiments". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 115 (6): 1221–1226. arXiv:1706.00868Freely accessible. doi:10.1073/pnas.1714936115. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 5819408Freely accessible. PMID 29348200. 
  16. ^ Huggins, William; Patel, Piyush; Whaley, K. Birgitta; Stoudenmire, E. Miles (2018-03-30). "Towards Quantum Machine Learning with Tensor Networks". arXiv:1803.11537Freely accessible [quant-ph]. 
  17. ^ Carleo, Giuseppe; Nomura, Yusuke; Imada, Masatoshi (2018-02-26). "Constructing exact representations of quantum many-body systems with deep neural networks". arXiv:1802.09558Freely accessible [cond-mat.dis-nn]. 
  18. ^ Bény, Cédric (2013-01-14). "Deep learning and the renormalization group". arXiv:1301.3124Freely accessible [quant-ph]. 
  19. ^ Arunachalam, Srinivasan; de Wolf, Ronald (2017-01-24). "A Survey of Quantum Learning Theory". arXiv:1701.06806Freely accessible [quant-ph]. 
  20. ^ Aïmeur, Esma; Brassard, Gilles; Gambs, Sébastien (2006-06-07). Machine Learning in a Quantum World. Advances in Artificial Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 4013. pp. 431–442. doi:10.1007/11766247_37. ISBN 978-3-540-34628-9. 
  21. ^ a b c Dunjko, Vedran; Taylor, Jacob M.; Briegel, Hans J. (2016-09-20). "Quantum-Enhanced Machine Learning". Physical Review Letters. 117 (13): 130501. arXiv:1610.08251Freely accessible. Bibcode:2016PhRvL.117m0501D. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.130501. PMID 27715099. 
  22. ^ a b Rebentrost, Patrick; Mohseni, Masoud; Lloyd, Seth (2014). "Quantum Support Vector Machine for Big Data Classification". Physical Review Letters. 113 (13): 130503. arXiv:1307.0471Freely accessible. Bibcode:2014PhRvL.113m0503R. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.130503. hdl:1721.1/90391. PMID 25302877. 
  23. ^ a b Wiebe, Nathan; Braun, Daniel; Lloyd, Seth (2012). "Quantum Algorithm for Data Fitting". Physical Review Letters. 109 (5): 050505. arXiv:1204.5242Freely accessible. Bibcode:2012PhRvL.109e0505W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.050505. PMID 23006156. 
  24. ^ a b Schuld, Maria; Sinayskiy, Ilya; Petruccione, Francesco (2016). "Prediction by linear regression on a quantum computer". Physical Review A. 94 (2): 022342. arXiv:1601.07823Freely accessible. Bibcode:2016PhRvA..94b2342S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.94.022342. 
  25. ^ a b Zhao, Zhikuan; Fitzsimons, Jack K.; Fitzsimons, Joseph F. (2015). "Quantum assisted Gaussian process regression". arXiv:1512.03929Freely accessible [quant-ph]. 
  26. ^ Harrow, Aram W.; Hassidim, Avinatan; Lloyd, Seth (2008). "Quantum algorithm for solving linear systems of equations". Physical Review Letters. 103 (15): 150502. arXiv:0811.3171Freely accessible. Bibcode:2009PhRvL.103o0502H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.150502. PMID 19905613. 
  27. ^ Berry, Dominic W.; Childs, Andrew M.; Kothari, Robin (2015). Hamiltonian simulation with nearly optimal dependence on all parameters. 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE. pp. 792–809. arXiv:1501.01715Freely accessible. doi:10.1109/FOCS.2015.54. 
  28. ^ Lloyd, Seth; Mohseni, Masoud; Rebentrost, Patrick (2014). "Quantum principal component analysis". Nature Physics. 10 (9): 631. arXiv:1307.0401Freely accessible. Bibcode:2014NatPh..10..631L. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.746.480Freely accessible. doi:10.1038/nphys3029. 
  29. ^ Soklakov, Andrei N.; Schack, Rüdiger (2006). "Efficient state preparation for a register of quantum bits". Physical Review A. 73 (1): 012307. arXiv:quant-ph/0408045Freely accessible. Bibcode:2006PhRvA..73a2307S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.73.012307. 
  30. ^ Giovannetti, Vittorio; Lloyd, Seth; MacCone, Lorenzo (2008). "Quantum Random Access Memory". Physical Review Letters. 100 (16): 160501. arXiv:0708.1879Freely accessible. Bibcode:2008PhRvL.100p0501G. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.160501. PMID 18518173. 
  31. ^ Aaronson, Scott (2015). "Read the fine print". Nature Physics. 11 (4): 291–293. Bibcode:2015NatPh..11..291A. doi:10.1038/nphys3272. 
  32. ^ Aïmeur, Esma; Brassard, Gilles; Gambs, Sébastien (2013-02-01). "Quantum speed-up for unsupervised learning". Machine Learning. 90 (2): 261–287. doi:10.1007/s10994-012-5316-5. ISSN 0885-6125. 
  33. ^ Wiebe, Nathan; Kapoor, Ashish; Svore, Krysta M. (2016). Quantum Perceptron Models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 29. pp. 3999–4007. arXiv:1602.04799Freely accessible [quant-ph]. Bibcode:2016arXiv160204799W. 
  34. ^ Paparo, Giuseppe Davide; Martin-Delgado, Miguel Angel (2012). "Google in a Quantum Network". Scientific Reports. 2 (444): 444. arXiv:1112.2079Freely accessible. Bibcode:2012NatSR...2E.444P. doi:10.1038/srep00444. PMC 3370332Freely accessible. PMID 22685626. 
  35. ^ a b c Paparo, Giuseppe Davide; Dunjko, Vedran; Makmal, Adi; Martin-Delgado, Miguel Angel; Briegel, Hans J. (2014). "Quantum Speedup for Active Learning Agents". Physical Review X. 4 (3): 031002. arXiv:1401.4997Freely accessible. Bibcode:2014PhRvX...4c1002P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.4.031002. 
  36. ^ Dong, Daoyi; Chen, Chunlin; Li, Hanxiong; Tarn, Tzyh-Jong (2008). "Quantum Reinforcement Learning". IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics). 38 (5): 1207–1220. arXiv:0810.3828Freely accessible. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.243.5369Freely accessible. doi:10.1109/TSMCB.2008.925743. PMID 18784007. 
  37. ^ Crawford, Daniel; Levit, Anna; Ghadermarzy, Navid; Oberoi, Jaspreet S.; Ronagh, Pooya (2018). "Reinforcement Learning Using Quantum Boltzmann Machines". arXiv:1612.05695Freely accessible [quant-ph]. 
  38. ^ Briegel, Hans J.; Cuevas, Gemma De las (2012-05-15). "Projective simulation for artificial intelligence". Scientific Reports. 2 (400): 400. arXiv:1104.3787Freely accessible. Bibcode:2012NatSR...2E.400B. doi:10.1038/srep00400. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 3351754Freely accessible. PMID 22590690. 
  39. ^ Lamata, Lucas (2017). "Basic protocols in quantum reinforcement learning with superconducting circuits". Scientific Reports. 7 (1): 1609. arXiv:1701.05131Freely accessible. Bibcode:2017NatSR...7.1609L. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-01711-6. PMC 5431677Freely accessible. PMID 28487535. 
  40. ^ Dunjko, V.; Friis, N.; Briegel, H. J. (2015-01-01). "Quantum-enhanced deliberation of learning agents using trapped ions". New Journal of Physics. 17 (2): 023006. arXiv:1407.2830Freely accessible. Bibcode:2015NJPh...17b3006D. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/17/2/023006. ISSN 1367-2630. 
  41. ^ Biswas, Rupak; Jiang, Zhang; Kechezi, Kostya; Knysh, Sergey; Mandrà, Salvatore; O’Gorman, Bryan; Perdomo-Ortiz, Alejando; Pethukov, Andre; Realpe-Gómez, John; Rieffel, Eleanor; Venturelli, Davide; Vasko, Fedir; Wang, Zhihui (2016). "A NASA perspective on quantum computing: Opportunities and challenges". Parallel Computing. 64: 81–98. doi:10.1016/j.parco.2016.11.002. 
  42. ^ a b Adachi, Steven H.; Henderson, Maxwell P. (2015). "Application of quantum annealing to training of deep neural networks". arXiv:1510.06356Freely accessible [quant-ph]. 
  43. ^ a b c d Benedetti, Marcello; Realpe-Gómez, John; Biswas, Rupak; Perdomo-Ortiz, Alejandro (2016). "Quantum-assisted learning of graphical models with arbitrary pairwise connectivity". Physical Review X. 7 (4): 041052. arXiv:1609.02542Freely accessible. Bibcode:2017PhRvX...7d1052B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.7.041052. 
  44. ^ a b Benedetti, Marcello; Realpe-Gómez, John; Biswas, Rupak; Perdomo-Ortiz, Alejandro (2016). "Estimation of effective temperatures in quantum annealers for sampling applications: A case study with possible applications in deep learning". Physical Review A. 94 (2): 022308. arXiv:1510.07611Freely accessible. Bibcode:2016PhRvA..94b2308B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.94.022308. 
  45. ^ a b Korenkevych, Dmytro; Xue, Yanbo; Bian, Zhengbing; Chudak, Fabian; Macready, William G.; Rolfe, Jason; Andriyash, Evgeny (2016). "Benchmarking quantum hardware for training of fully visible Boltzmann machines". arXiv:1611.04528Freely accessible [quant-ph]. 
  46. ^ Amin, Mohammad H.; Andriyash, Evgeny; Rolfe, Jason; Kulchytskyy, Bohdan; Melko, Roger (2016). "Quantum Boltzmann machines". Phys. Rev. X. 8 (21050). arXiv:1601.02036Freely accessible. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.8.021050. 
  47. ^ Wiebe, Nathan; Kapoor, Ashish; Svore, Krysta M. (2014). "Quantum deep learning". arXiv:1412.3489Freely accessible [quant-ph]. 
  48. ^ Wittek, Peter; Gogolin, Christian (2017). "Quantum Enhanced Inference in Markov Logic Networks". Scientific Reports. 7 (45672): 45672. arXiv:1611.08104Freely accessible [stat.ML]. Bibcode:2017NatSR...745672W. doi:10.1038/srep45672. PMC 5395824Freely accessible. PMID 28422093. 
  49. ^ a b Wan, Kwok-Ho; Dahlsten, Oscar; Kristjansson, Hler; Gardner, Robert; Kim, Myungshik (2016). "Quantum generalisation of feedforward neural networks". Npj Quantum Information. 3 (36): 36. arXiv:1612.01045Freely accessible. Bibcode:2017npjQI...3...36W. doi:10.1038/s41534-017-0032-4. 
  50. ^ Killoran, Nathan; Bromley, Thomas R.; Arrazola, Juan Miguel; Schuld, Maria; Quesada, Nicolás; Lloyd, Seth (2018-06-18). "Continuous-variable quantum neural networks". arXiv:1806.06871Freely accessible [quant-ph]. 
  51. ^ "QNNcloud". qnncloud.com (in Japanese). Retrieved 2018-09-03. 
  52. ^ Clark, Lewis A.; Huang W., Wei; Barlow, Thomas H.; Beige, Almut (2015). "Hidden Quantum Markov Models and Open Quantum Systems with Instantaneous Feedback". In Sanayei, Ali; Rössler, Otto E.; Zelinka, Ivan. ISCS 2014: Interdisciplinary Symposium on Complex Systems. Emergence, Complexity and Computation. Iscs , P. 143, Springer (2015). Emergence, Complexity and Computation. 14. pp. 131–151. arXiv:1406.5847Freely accessible. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.749.3332Freely accessible. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10759-2_16. ISBN 978-3-319-10759-2. 
  53. ^ a b c Srinivasan, Siddarth; Gordon, Geoff; Boots, Byron (2018). "Learning Hidden Quantum Markov Models" (PDF). AISTATS. 
  54. ^ Sentís, Gael; Guţă, Mădălin; Adesso, Gerardo (9 July 2015). "Quantum learning of coherent states". EPJ Quantum Technology. 2 (1). doi:10.1140/epjqt/s40507-015-0030-4. 
  55. ^ Sasaki, Masahide; Carlini, Alberto (6 August 2002). "Quantum learning and universal quantum matching machine". Physical Review A. 66 (2): 022303. arXiv:quant-ph/0202173Freely accessible. Bibcode:2002PhRvA..66b2303S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.66.022303. 
  56. ^ Bisio, Alessandro; Chiribella, Giulio; D’Ariano, Giacomo Mauro; Facchini, Stefano; Perinotti, Paolo (25 March 2010). "Optimal quantum learning of a unitary transformation". Physical Review A. 81 (3): 032324. arXiv:0903.0543Freely accessible. Bibcode:2010PhRvA..81c2324B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.81.032324. 
  57. ^ Aïmeur, Esma; Brassard, Gilles; Gambs, Sébastien (1 January 2007). Quantum Clustering Algorithms. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Machine Learning. pp. 1–8. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.80.9513Freely accessible. doi:10.1145/1273496.1273497. ISBN 9781595937933. 
  58. ^ a b Sentís, Gael; Calsamiglia, John; Muñoz-Tapia, Raúl; Bagan, Emilio (2012). "Quantum learning without quantum memory". Scientific Reports. 2: 708. arXiv:1106.2742Freely accessible. Bibcode:2012NatSR...2E.708S. doi:10.1038/srep00708. PMC 3464493Freely accessible. PMID 23050092. 
  59. ^ Wiebe, Nathan; Granade, Christopher; Ferrie, Christopher; Cory, David (2014). "Quantum Hamiltonian learning using imperfect quantum resources". Physical Review A. 89 (4): 042314. arXiv:1311.5269Freely accessible. Bibcode:2014PhRvA..89d2314W. doi:10.1103/physreva.89.042314. hdl:10453/118943. 
  60. ^ a b Bisio, Alessandro; Chiribella, Giulio; D'Ariano, Giacomo Mauro; Facchini, Stefano; Perinotti, Paolo (2010). "Optimal quantum learning of a unitary transformation". Physical Review A. 81 (3): 032324. arXiv:0903.0543Freely accessible. Bibcode:2010PhRvA..81c2324B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.81.032324. 
  61. ^ a b Jeongho; Junghee Ryu, Bang; Yoo, Seokwon; Pawłowski, Marcin; Lee, Jinhyoung (2014). "A strategy for quantum algorithm design assisted by machine learning". New Journal of Physics. 16 (1): 073017. arXiv:1304.2169Freely accessible. Bibcode:2014NJPh...16a3017K. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/1/013017. 
  62. ^ Granade, Christopher E.; Ferrie, Christopher; Wiebe, Nathan; Cory, D. G. (2012-10-03). "Robust Online Hamiltonian Learning". New Journal of Physics. 14 (10): 103013. arXiv:1207.1655Freely accessible. Bibcode:2012NJPh...14j3013G. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/14/10/103013. ISSN 1367-2630. 
  63. ^ Wiebe, Nathan; Granade, Christopher; Ferrie, Christopher; Cory, D. G. (1905). "Hamiltonian Learning and Certification Using Quantum Resources". Physical Review Letters. 112 (19): 190501. arXiv:1309.0876Freely accessible. Bibcode:2014PhRvL.112s0501W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.190501. ISSN 0031-9007. PMID 24877920. 
  64. ^ Wiebe, Nathan; Granade, Christopher; Ferrie, Christopher; Cory, David G. (2014-04-17). "Quantum Hamiltonian Learning Using Imperfect Quantum Resources". Physical Review A. 89 (4): 042314. arXiv:1311.5269Freely accessible. Bibcode:2014PhRvA..89d2314W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.89.042314. hdl:10453/118943. ISSN 1050-2947. 
  65. ^ Sasaki, Madahide; Carlini, Alberto; Jozsa, Richard (2001). "Quantum Template Matching". Physical Review A. 64 (2): 022317. arXiv:quant-ph/0102020Freely accessible. Bibcode:2001PhRvA..64b2317S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.64.022317. 
  66. ^ Sasaki, Masahide (2002). "Quantum learning and universal quantum matching machine". Physical Review A. 66 (2): 022303. arXiv:quant-ph/0202173Freely accessible. Bibcode:2002PhRvA..66b2303S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.66.022303. 
  67. ^ Sentís, Gael; Guţă, Mădălin; Adesso, Gerardo (2015-07-09). "Quantum learning of coherent states". EPJ Quantum Technology. 2 (1): 17. doi:10.1140/epjqt/s40507-015-0030-4. ISSN 2196-0763. 
  68. ^ Zahedinejad, Ehsan; Ghosh, Joydip; Sanders, Barry C. (2016-11-16). "Designing High-Fidelity Single-Shot Three-Qubit Gates: A Machine Learning Approach". Physical Review Applied. 6 (5): 054005. arXiv:1511.08862Freely accessible. Bibcode:2016PhRvP...6e4005Z. doi:10.1103/PhysRevApplied.6.054005. ISSN 2331-7019. 
  69. ^ Banchi, Leonardo; Pancotti, Nicola; Bose, Sougato (2016-07-19). "Quantum gate learning in qubit networks: Toffoli gate without time-dependent control". npj Quantum Information. 2: 16019. Bibcode:2016npjQI...216019B. doi:10.1038/npjqi.2016.19. 
  70. ^ Rupp, Matthias; Tkatchenko, Alexandre; Muller, Klaus-Robert; von Lilienfeld, O. Anatole (2012-01-31). "Fast and Accurate Modeling of Molecular Atomization Energies With Machine Learning". Physical Review Letters. 355 (6325): 602. arXiv:1109.2618Freely accessible. Bibcode:2012PhRvL.108e8301R. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.058301. PMID 22400967. 
  71. ^ Krenn, Mario (2016-01-01). "Automated Search for new Quantum Experiments". Physical Review Letters. 116 (9): 090405. arXiv:1509.02749Freely accessible. Bibcode:2016PhRvL.116i0405K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.090405. PMID 26991161. 
  72. ^ Knott, Paul (2016-03-22). "A search algorithm for quantum state engineering and metrology". New Journal of Physics. 18 (7): 073033. arXiv:1511.05327Freely accessible. Bibcode:2016NJPh...18g3033K. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/18/7/073033. 
  73. ^ Carleo, Giuseppe; Troyer, Matthias (2017-02-09). "Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks". Science. 355 (6325): 602–606. arXiv:1606.02318Freely accessible. Bibcode:2017Sci...355..602C. doi:10.1126/science.aag2302. PMID 28183973. 
  74. ^ van Nieuwenburg, Evert; Liu, Ye-Hua; Huber, Sebastian (2017). "Learning phase transitions by confusion". Nature Physics. 13 (5): 435. arXiv:1610.02048Freely accessible. Bibcode:2017NatPh..13..435V. doi:10.1038/nphys4037. 
  75. ^ Hentschel, Alexander (2010-01-01). "Machine Learning for Precise Quantum Measurement". Physical Review Letters. 104 (6): 063603. arXiv:0910.0762Freely accessible. Bibcode:2010PhRvL.104f3603H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.063603. PMID 20366821. 
  76. ^ Arunachalam, Srinivasan; de Wolf, Ronald (2017). "A Survey of Quantum Learning Theory". arXiv:1701.06806Freely accessible [quant-ph]. 
  77. ^ a b c Servedio, Rocco A.; Gortler, Steven J. (2004). "Equivalences and Separations Between Quantum and Classical Learnability". SIAM Journal on Computing. 33 (5): 1067–1092. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.69.6555Freely accessible. doi:10.1137/S0097539704412910. 
  78. ^ Arunachalam, Srinivasan; de Wolf, Ronald (2016). "Optimal Quantum Sample Complexity of Learning Algorithms". arXiv:1607.00932Freely accessible [quant-ph]. 
  79. ^ Nader, Bshouty H.; Jeffrey, Jackson C. (1999). "Learning DNF over the Uniform Distribution Using a Quantum Example Oracle". SIAM Journal on Computing. 28 (3): 1136–1153. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.23.5709Freely accessible. doi:10.1137/S0097539795293123. 
  80. ^ Monràs, Alex; Sentís, Gael; Wittek, Peter (2017). "Inductive supervised quantum learning". Physical Review Letters. 118 (19): 190503. arXiv:1605.07541Freely accessible. Bibcode:2017PhRvL.118s0503M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.190503. PMID 28548536. 
  81. ^ "NIPS 2009 Demonstration: Binary Classification using Hardware Implementation of Quantum Annealing" (PDF). Static.googleusercontent.com. Retrieved 26 November 2014. 
  82. ^ "Google Quantum A.I. Lab Team". Google Plus. 31 January 2017. Retrieved 31 January 2017. 
  83. ^ "NASA Quantum Artificial Intelligence Laboratory". NASA. NASA. 31 January 2017. Retrieved 31 January 2017. 
  84. ^ Neigovzen, Rodion; Neves, Jorge L.; Sollacher, Rudolf; Glaser, Steffen J. (2009). "Quantum pattern recognition with liquid-state nuclear magnetic resonance". Physical Review A. 79 (4): 042321. arXiv:0802.1592Freely accessible. Bibcode:2009PhRvA..79d2321N. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.79.042321. 
  85. ^ Li, Zhaokai; Liu, Xiaomei; Xu, Nanyang; Du, Jiangfeng (2015). "Experimental Realization of a Quantum Support Vector Machine". Physical Review Letters. 114 (14): 140504. arXiv:1410.1054Freely accessible. Bibcode:2015PhRvL.114n0504L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.140504. PMID 25910101. 
  86. ^ Brunner, Daniel; Soriano, Miguel C.; Mirasso, Claudio R.; Fischer, Ingo (2013). "Parallel photonic information processing at gigabyte per second data rates using transient states". Nature Communications. 4: 1364. Bibcode:2013NatCo...4E1364B. doi:10.1038/ncomms2368. PMC 3562454Freely accessible. PMID 23322052. 
  87. ^ Tezak, Nikolas; Mabuchi, Hideo (2015). "A coherent perceptron for all-optical learning". EPJ Quantum Technology. 2. arXiv:1501.01608Freely accessible. doi:10.1140/epjqt/s40507-015-0023-3. 
  88. ^ Cai, X.-D.; Wu, D.; Su, Z.-E.; Chen, M.-C.; Wang, X.-L.; Li, Li; Liu, N.-L.; Lu, C.-Y.; Pan, J.-W. (2015). "Entanglement-Based Machine Learning on a Quantum Computer". Physical Review Letters. 114 (11): 110504. arXiv:1409.7770Freely accessible. Bibcode:2015PhRvL.114k0504C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.110504. PMID 25839250. 
  89. ^ Pfeiffer, P.; Egusquiza, I. L.; Di Ventra, M.; Sanz, M.; Solano, E. (2016). "Quantum memristors". Scientific Reports. 6 (2016): 29507. arXiv:1511.02192Freely accessible. Bibcode:2016NatSR...629507P. doi:10.1038/srep29507. PMC 4933948Freely accessible. PMID 27381511. 
  90. ^ Salmilehto, J.; Deppe, F.; Di Ventra, M.; Sanz, M.; Solano, E. (2017). "Quantum Memristors with Superconducting Circuits". Scientific Reports. 7 (42044): 42044. arXiv:1603.04487Freely accessible. Bibcode:2017NatSR...742044S. doi:10.1038/srep42044. PMC 5307327Freely accessible. PMID 28195193. 
  91. ^ Li, Ying; Holloway, Gregory W.; Benjamin, Simon C.; Briggs, G. Andrew D.; Baugh, Jonathan; Mol, Jan A. (2016). "A simple and robust quantum memristor". Physical Review B. 96 (7): 075446. arXiv:1612.08409Freely accessible. Bibcode:2017PhRvB..96g5446L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.96.075446.