A Comparison of Evolutionary Algorithms for Training Variational Quantum Classifiers

Quantum machine learning is a research area that explores the interplay of ideas from quantum computing and machine learning to speed up the time it takes to train or evaluate a machine learning model. Variational quantum classifiers are among the most widely used quantum models for supervised machine learning and base their operation on learning free parameters through conventional optimization algorithms. In spite of their potential benefits, there is a design issue making quantum variational classifiers not fully operative: the existence of exponentially vanishing gradients, known as “barren plateau landscapes”. A barren plateau is a trainability problem that occurs in optimization algorithms for quantum machine learning when the problem-solving space turns flat as the algorithm is run. In that situation, the algorithm cannot find the downward slope in what appears to be a featureless landscape and there's no clear path to the optimum of the cost function. In this challenging scenario, evolutionary optimization techniques can be a viable choice in solving the problem because of their gradient independence. This paper introduces a comparative study involving different evolutionary algorithms to assess their suitability in acting as optimizer for a specific quantum machine learning method, known as variational quantum classifier.

[1]  G. Acampora,et al.  Training Variational Quantum Circuits through Genetic Algorithms , 2022, 2022 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC).

[2]  Patrick J. Coles,et al.  Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits , 2021, Nature Communications.

[3]  M. Cerezo,et al.  Variational quantum algorithms , 2020, Nature Reviews Physics.

[4]  Fabio Baruffa,et al.  Intel Quantum Simulator: a cloud-ready high-performance simulator of quantum circuits , 2020, Quantum Science and Technology.

[5]  Marcello Benedetti,et al.  Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models , 2019, Quantum Science and Technology.

[6]  D Zhu,et al.  Training of quantum circuits on a hybrid quantum computer , 2018, Science Advances.

[7]  M. Schuld,et al.  Circuit-centric quantum classifiers , 2018, Physical Review A.

[8]  Ryan Babbush,et al.  Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes , 2018, Nature Communications.

[9]  Alejandro Perdomo-Ortiz,et al.  A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits , 2018, npj Quantum Information.

[10]  Jarrod R. McClean,et al.  Computation of Molecular Spectra on a Quantum Processor with an Error-Resilient Algorithm , 2017, 1707.06408.

[11]  J. Gambetta,et al.  Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets , 2017, Nature.

[12]  E. Farhi,et al.  A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm , 2014, 1411.4028.

[13]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  A comparison of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for the ontology meta-matching problem , 2014, 2014 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC).

[14]  James Kennedy,et al.  Particle swarm optimization , 2002, Proceedings of ICNN'95 - International Conference on Neural Networks.

[15]  D. James,et al.  Quantum Computation and Quantum Information , 2001 .

[16]  Yue Shi,et al.  A modified particle swarm optimizer , 1998, 1998 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation Proceedings. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence (Cat. No.98TH8360).

[17]  Rainer Storn,et al.  Differential Evolution – A Simple and Efficient Heuristic for global Optimization over Continuous Spaces , 1997, J. Glob. Optim..

[18]  Peter W. Shor,et al.  Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer , 1995, SIAM Rev..

[19]  D. Deutsch Quantum theory, the Church–Turing principle and the universal quantum computer , 1985, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences.