3.9 Article

Evaluation of parameterized quantum circuits: on the relation between classification accuracy, expressibility, and entangling capability

期刊

QUANTUM MACHINE INTELLIGENCE
卷 3, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1007/s42484-021-00038-w

关键词

Quantum neural networks; Parameterized quantum circuits; Expressibility; Quantum machine learning; Quantum computing; Entangling capability

资金

  1. BMWi (PlanQK)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The research shows a moderate to strong correlation between a circuit's ability to uniformly address the Hilbert space and classification accuracy in quantum machine learning. In contrast, there is a weak correlation between entangling capability and classification accuracy in a similar setup. Future work will focus on evaluating these correlations for different circuit designs.
An active area of investigation in the search for quantum advantage is quantum machine learning. Quantum machine learning, and parameterized quantum circuits in a hybrid quantum-classical setup in particular, could bring advancements in accuracy by utilizing the high dimensionality of the Hilbert space as feature space. But is the ability of a quantum circuit to uniformly address the Hilbert space a good indicator of classification accuracy? In our work, we use methods and quantifications from prior art to perform a numerical study in order to evaluate the level of correlation. We find a moderate to strong correlation between the ability of the circuit to uniformly address the Hilbert space and the achieved classification accuracy for circuits that entail a single embedding layer followed by 1 or 2 circuit designs. This is based on our study encompassing 19 circuits in both 1- and 2-layer configurations, evaluated on 9 datasets of increasing difficulty. We also evaluate the correlation between entangling capability and classification accuracy in a similar setup, and find a weak correlation. Future work will focus on evaluating if this holds for different circuit designs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据