4.7 Article

Improved bounds on quantum learning algorithms

Journal

QUANTUM INFORMATION PROCESSING
Volume 4, Issue 5, Pages 355-386

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11128-005-0001-2

Keywords

quantum query algorithms; quantum computation; computational learning theory; PAC learning

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this article we give several new results on the complexity of algorithms that learn Boolean functions from quantum queries and quantum examples. Hunziker et al. [Quantum Information Processing, to appear] conjectured that for any class C of Boolean functions, the number of quantum black-box queries which are required to exactly identify an unknown function from C is O (log vertical bar C vertical bar/root gamma C), where gamma(C) is a combinatorial parameter of the class C. We essentially resolve this conjecture in the affirmative by giving a quantum algorithm that, for any class C, identifies any unknown function front C using O(log vertical bar C vertical bar log log vertical bar C vertical bar/root gamma(C)) quantum black box queries. We consider a range of natural problems intermediate between the exact learning problem (in which the learner must obtain all bits of information about the black-box function) and the usual problem of computing a predicate (in which the learner must obtain only one bit of information about the black-box function). We give positive and negative results on when the quantum and classical query complexities of these intermediate problems are polynomially related to each other. Finally, we improve the known lower bounds on the number of quantum examples (as opposed to quantum black-box queries) required for (epsilon, delta)-PAC learning any concept class of Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension d over the domain {0, 1}(n) front Omega (d/n) to Omega(1/epsilon log 1/delta +d+ root d/epsilon). This new lower bound comes closer to matching known upper bounds for classical PAC learning.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available