Classical versus Quantum Models in Machine Learning: Insights from a Finance Application

Although several models have been proposed towards assisting machine learning (ML) tasks with quantum computers, a direct comparison of the expressive power and efficiency of classical versus quantum models for datasets originating from real-world applications is one of the key milestones towards a quantum ready era. Here, we take a first step towards addressing this challenge by performing a comparison of the widely used classical ML models known as restricted Boltzmann machines (RBMs), against a recently proposed quantum model, now known as quantum circuit Born machines (QCBMs). Both models address the same hard tasks in unsupervised generative modeling, with QCBMs exploiting the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics and a candidate for near-term quantum computers, as experimentally demonstrated in three different quantum hardware architectures to date. To address the question of the performance of the quantum model on real-world classical data sets, we construct scenarios from a probabilistic version out of the well-known portfolio optimization problem in finance, by using time-series pricing data from asset subsets of the S\&P500 stock market index. It is remarkable to find that, under the same number of resources in terms of parameters for both classical and quantum models, the quantum models seem to have superior performance on typical instances when compared with the canonical training of the RBMs. Our simulations are grounded on a hardware efficient realization of the QCBMs on ion-trap quantum computers, by using their native gate sets, and therefore readily implementable in near-term quantum devices.

[1]  Davide Venturelli,et al.  Reverse quantum annealing approach to portfolio optimization problems , 2018, Quantum Machine Intelligence.

[2]  Stefan Woerner,et al.  Quantum risk analysis , 2018, npj Quantum Information.

[3]  George D. C. Cavalcanti,et al.  Market volatility modeling for short time window , 2011 .

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

[5]  Thomas R. Bromley,et al.  Quantum computational finance: Monte Carlo pricing of financial derivatives , 2018, Physical Review A.

[6]  Rupak Biswas,et al.  Opportunities and challenges for quantum-assisted machine learning in near-term quantum computers , 2017, Quantum Science and Technology.

[7]  Alberto Suárez,et al.  Selection of Optimal Investment Portfolios with Cardinality Constraints , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

[8]  Saeed Farzi,et al.  Using quantum-behaved particle swarm optimization for portfolio selection problem , 2013, Int. Arab J. Inf. Technol..

[9]  Roman Orus,et al.  Quantum computing for finance: Overview and prospects , 2018, Reviews in Physics.

[10]  Alberto Suárez,et al.  Hybrid Approaches and Dimensionality Reduction for Portfolio Selection with Cardinality Constraints , 2010, IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine.

[11]  Rupak Biswas,et al.  Readiness of Quantum Optimization Machines for Industrial Applications , 2017, Physical Review Applied.

[12]  Nicolas Le Roux,et al.  Representational Power of Restricted Boltzmann Machines and Deep Belief Networks , 2008, Neural Computation.

[13]  Elham Kashefi,et al.  The Born supremacy: quantum advantage and training of an Ising Born machine , 2019, npj Quantum Information.

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

[15]  Aleš Kresta SOLVING CARDINALITY CONSTRAINED PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM BY BINARY PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHM , 2011 .

[16]  Yee Whye Teh,et al.  A Fast Learning Algorithm for Deep Belief Nets , 2006, Neural Computation.

[17]  Yudong Cao,et al.  Realizing Quantum Boltzmann Machines Through Eigenstate Thermalization , 2019, 1903.01359.

[18]  M. Marzec Portfolio Optimization: Applications in Quantum Computing , 2014 .

[19]  Jun Wang,et al.  Unsupervised Generative Modeling Using Matrix Product States , 2017, Physical Review X.

[20]  Alejandro Perdomo-Ortiz,et al.  Robust implementation of generative modeling with parametrized quantum circuits , 2019, Quantum Machine Intelligence.

[21]  Jens Eisert,et al.  Expressive power of tensor-network factorizations for probabilistic modeling, with applications from hidden Markov models to quantum machine learning , 2019, NeurIPS.

[22]  Kathleen E. Hamilton,et al.  Generative model benchmarks for superconducting qubits , 2018, Physical Review A.

[23]  Nikolaus Hansen,et al.  Completely Derandomized Self-Adaptation in Evolution Strategies , 2001, Evolutionary Computation.

[24]  Lei Wang,et al.  Differentiable Learning of Quantum Circuit Born Machine , 2018, Physical Review A.

[25]  Tai-Danae Bradley,et al.  Modeling sequences with quantum states: a look under the hood , 2019, Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol..

[26]  Stefan Woerner,et al.  Quantum Generative Adversarial Networks for learning and loading random distributions , 2019, npj Quantum Information.

[27]  R. Orús,et al.  Forecasting financial crashes with quantum computing , 2018, Physical Review A.

[28]  Roger Melko,et al.  Quantum Boltzmann Machine , 2016, 1601.02036.

[29]  Kesheng Wu,et al.  Solving the Optimal Trading Trajectory Problem Using a Quantum Annealer , 2015, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing.

[30]  L-M Duan,et al.  A quantum machine learning algorithm based on generative models , 2018, Science Advances.