skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Classical versus quantum models in machine learning: insights from a finance application

Journal Article · · Machine Learning: Science and Technology
 [1];  [2]; ORCiD logo [3]
  1. Zapata Computing Canada Inc., Toronto, ON (Canada); National Australia Bank, London (United Kingdom)
  2. Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States); Rigetti Computing, Berkeley, CA (United States)
  3. Zapata Computing Canada Inc., Toronto, ON (Canada); Rigetti Computing, Berkeley, CA (United States); Univ. College London (United Kingdom)

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.

Research Organization:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States)
Sponsoring Organization:
USDOE
Grant/Contract Number:
AC05-00OR22725
OSTI ID:
1648867
Journal Information:
Machine Learning: Science and Technology, Vol. 1, Issue 3; ISSN 2632-2153
Publisher:
IOP PublishingCopyright Statement
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English

References (22)

Differentiable learning of quantum circuit Born machines journal December 2018
Quantum Generative Adversarial Networks for learning and loading random distributions journal November 2019
Forecasting financial crashes with quantum computing journal June 2019
Generative model benchmarks for superconducting qubits journal June 2019
Completely Derandomized Self-Adaptation in Evolution Strategies journal June 2001
Solving Cardinality Constrained Portfolio Optimization Problem by Binary Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm journal September 2011
Hybrid Approaches and Dimensionality Reduction for Portfolio Selection with Cardinality Constraints journal May 2010
Selection of Optimal Investment Portfolios with Cardinality Constraints conference January 2006
Representational Power of Restricted Boltzmann Machines and Deep Belief Networks journal June 2008
A Fast Learning Algorithm for Deep Belief Nets journal July 2006
Readiness of Quantum Optimization Machines for Industrial Applications journal July 2019
A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits journal May 2019
Training of quantum circuits on a hybrid quantum computer journal October 2019
Quantum computing for finance: Overview and prospects journal November 2019
Quantum computational finance: Monte Carlo pricing of financial derivatives journal August 2018
Solving the Optimal Trading Trajectory Problem Using a Quantum Annealer journal September 2016
A quantum machine learning algorithm based on generative models journal December 2018
Quantum risk analysis journal February 2019
Reverse quantum annealing approach to portfolio optimization problems journal April 2019
Quantum Boltzmann Machine journal May 2018
Opportunities and challenges for quantum-assisted machine learning in near-term quantum computers journal June 2018
Market volatility modeling for short time window journal October 2011

Cited By (2)

Quantum versus classical generative modelling in finance journal April 2021
Quantum Computer-Aided design of Quantum Optics Hardware text January 2020