4.6 Article

On the Quantum versus Classical Learnability of Discrete Distributions

Journal

QUANTUM
Volume 5, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

VEREIN FORDERUNG OPEN ACCESS PUBLIZIERENS QUANTENWISSENSCHAF
DOI: 10.22331/q-2021-03-23-417

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. BMWi, under the PlanQK initiative
  2. Berlin Institute for the Foundations of Learning and Data
  3. Einstein Foundation Berlin
  4. BMBF Post-Quantum-Cryptography framework
  5. BMWi under the PlanQK initiative
  6. DFG [CRC 183, EI 519/14-1, EF1-11]
  7. Templeton Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compares the performance of classical and quantum learners for generative modeling within the Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) framework. The results show that quantum learners exhibit a provable advantage over classical learners in efficiently learning certain discrete probability distributions.
Here we study the comparative power of classical and quantum learners for generative modelling within the Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) framework. More specifically we consider the following task: Given samples from some unknown discrete probability distribution, output with high probability an efficient algorithm for generating new samples from a good approximation of the original distribution. Our primary result is the explicit construction of a class of discrete probability distributions which, under the decisional Diffie-Hellman assumption, is provably not efficiently PAC learnable by a classical generative modelling algorithm, but for which we construct an efficient quantum learner. This class of distributions therefore provides a concrete example of a generative modelling problem for which quantum learners exhibit a provable advantage over classical learning algorithms. In addition, we discuss techniques for proving classical generative modelling hardness results, as well as the relationship between the PAC learnability of Boolean functions and the PAC learnability of discrete probability distributions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available