4 ms·
I think QNN are very interesting from a compsci perspective, and interesting from a quantum tech perspective, but not so much from a real world perspective. As
by sgt101 5y ago
I think QNN are very interesting from a compsci perspective, and interesting from a quantum tech perspective, but not so much from a real world perspective.
As I understand it loading classical data into a quantum computer - into quantum ram - is a big bottleneck. So running a QNN over a picture of a cat can't give a speedup vs. running it on a classical machine. Is this wrong HN?
I haven't found a result showing QNN's do offer strong speedups for training or testing - I have found papers saying it looks good - but I haven't found the result. I think this may be a literature search fail by me though.
For generalisation I have seen
papers claiming that there will be better generalisation with QNN but I have failed to understand this result and do need to work harder!
I also believe that the most promising algorithm for quantum ML (HHL) has been "dequantized" I think that Grover's and QMC are pretty secure but also only quadratic in speed up (I say only - this is because that means there is a window of quantum advantage that may or may not be useful before the quantum algorithms fall off a cliff as well.
Ok - I need to understand this stuff for real, so please shoot me to bits !
- lumost 5y agoQC for optimization and other hard search problems is an interesting area for deeper exploration. It's possible that quantum optimizers could be exponentially faster than existing optimization techniques by evaluating multiple minima simultaneously. Throwing AI on the research campus does help focus what researchers will do there - e.g. research algorithms which can plausibly improve training, inference, and generalization of neural networks/ML models. Rather than researching other more "practical" QC applications such as cryptography.
- typon 5y ago> It's possible that quantum optimizers could be exponentially faster than existing optimization techniques by evaluating multiple minima simultaneously. Is there any known quantum algorithm that gives a speedup over classical algorithms? I don't mean "call Grover as a subroutine" during your standard classical optimization algorithm.
- anon_tor_12345 5y agoI don't understand this question? Grover's algorithm is itself faster than classical search algos. It is as of yet unknown whether quantum computers are more powerful than classical computers; there is no proof that BQP is strictly bigger than P. There is oracle separation but that's not the same thing.
- sgt101 5y agoI think that BQP > P is not so important. Exponential advantage of known qalg vs known c_alg when the hardware is available is what's important.
- anon_tor_12345 5y agothat's what everyone says but imagine 10 years from now someone proves BQP < P. since that proof will entail a ptime reduction you'll immediately have a ptime shor's and etc.
- sgt101 5y agoWe have a p time Shor's ! I don't think BQP<P makes sense... BQP <NP? I think you may be mocking me :(
- sgt101 5y agoOh sure, Shore's. Also a bunch more.
- selimthegrim 5y agoI think Preskill just had a paper out showing average case advantages for common QML tasks.
- sgt101 5y agodo you have a link?
- selimthegrim 5y agoSorry, I misspoke slightly, but there is an advantage - https://twitter.com/RobertHuangHY/status/1393263028150231041 https://twitter.com/RobertHuangHY/status/1393263028150231041
- agumonkey 5y agoI know next to nothing about all this but 'bottlenecks' don't worry me when talking about such a deep and ~nascent field. My first desktop had a whopping 4MB DRAM module in it .. we all saw the history of discrete computing manufacturing.
- temac 5y agoI distinctly remember reading an article in a scientific magazine promising the marvels of quantum computing in 95. Let's just say some progress since then certainly exists but it is quite not commensurate to the progress made on traditional computers. I'll not be surprised if we still talk about a "nascent field" in 50 years. (After all some still consider today programming to be so young that we don't really know how to do it - and at the risk of going on a tagent I find it ironical that traditionnal hw computer designers seem to have meanwhile master their own nascent discipline well enough)
- krastanov 5y agoIt might be more fair if you compare this to how long it took to move from Babbage's blueprints to something like ENIAC (more than a century?).