Classical versus quantum models in machine learning: insights from a finance application
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
QCBMs have been applied to tasks such as generating images or financial data.
“and have been applied to tasks such as generating images (Rudolph et al. , 2020) or financial data (Alcazar et al. , 2020; Coyle et al. , 2020a).”
From Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms (2022) · cites this paper as Alcazar et al. , 2020
Cites
Completely Derandomized Self-Adaptation in Evolution Strategies
Hansen, N., & Ostermeier, A. (2001) · Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1162/106365601750190398 · Cited by 4,397 · see citing works
A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits
Benedetti, M., Garcia-Pintos, D., Perdomo, O., Leyton-Ortega, V., Nam, Y., & Perdomo-Ortiz, A. (2019) · npj Quantum Information · doi:10.1038/s41534-019-0157-8 · Cited by 379 · see citing works
Self-citationDifferentiable learning of quantum circuit Born machines
Liu, J.-G., & Wang, L. (2018) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.98.062324 · Cited by 279 · see citing works
Opportunities and challenges for quantum-assisted machine learning in near-term quantum computers
Perdomo-Ortiz, A., Benedetti, M., Realpe-Gómez, J., & Biswas, R. (2018) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/aab859 · Cited by 274 · see citing works
Self-citationReverse quantum annealing approach to portfolio optimization problems
Venturelli, D., & Kondratyev, A. (2019) · Quantum Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s42484-019-00001-w · Cited by 233 · see citing works
The Born supremacy: quantum advantage and training of an Ising Born machine
Coyle, B., Mills, D., Danos, V., & Kashefi, E. (2020) · npj Quantum Information · doi:10.1038/s41534-020-00288-9 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
Generative model benchmarks for superconducting qubits
Hamilton, K. E., Dumitrescu, E. F., & Pooser, R. C. (2019) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.99.062323 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms
Bharti, K., Cervera-Lierta, A., Kyaw, T. H., Haug, T., Alperin-Lea, S., Anand, A., Degroote, M., Heimonen, H., Kottmann, J. S., Menke, T., et al. (2022) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.94.015004 · Cited by 1,726 · see citing works
- Authors
- Alcazar, J., Leyton-Ortega, V., & Perdomo-Ortiz, A.
- Affiliations
- National Australia Bank (AU)
- Venue
- Machine Learning: Science and Technology
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2020-07-06
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 035003
- ISSN
- 2632-2153 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2970710628
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 3.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Machine Learning Science and Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ERKJ332)
- Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ERKJ332)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
- Keywords
- quantum machine learning, restricted Boltzmann machine, generative models, portfolio optimization, ion trap quantum computer, near-term quantum devices
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review