CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 109Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Information and CryptographyBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantum inference on Bayesian networks

Open access
Low, Guang Hao, Yoder, Theodore J., Chuang, Isaac L.·2014·Physical Review A
DOI 10.1103/physreva.89.062315
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Performing exact inference on Bayesian networks is known to be $#P$-hard. Typically approximate inference techniques are used instead to sample from the distribution on query variables given the values $e$ of evidence variables. Classically, a single unbiased sample is obtained from a Bayesian network on $n$ variables with at most $m$ parents per node in time $O(nmP{(e)}^{\ensuremath{-}1})$, depending critically on $P(e)$, the probability that the evidence might occur in the first place. By implementing a quantum version of rejection sampling, we obtain a square-root speedup, taking $O(n{2}^{m}P{(e)}^{\ensuremath{-}\frac{1}{2}})$ time per sample. We exploit the Bayesian network's graph structure to efficiently construct a quantum state, a q-sample, representing the intended classical distribution, and also to efficiently apply amplitude amplification, the source of our speedup. Thus, our speedup is notable as it is unrelativized---we count primitive operations and require no blackbox oracle queries.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physreva.89.062315

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. 10.1007/BF00994110 · DOI
  2. A. D. Bookatz, 2014, Quantum Inf. Comput., 14, 5
  3. T. Lee, 2011, Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)
  4. P. Kaye, 2002, Proceedings of the International Conference on Quantum Information
  5. D. M. Chickering, 2004, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 5, 1287
  6. J. Combes, 2014, APS March Meeting

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 109

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Low, G. H., Yoder, T. J., & Chuang, I. L.
Affiliations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
ORCID
Venue
Physical Review A
Publisher
American Physical Society (APS)
Published
2014-06-13
Volume
89
Issue
6
ISSN
  • 0556-2791 (ISSN-L)
  • 1050-2947
  • 1094-1622
DOI
10.1103/physreva.89.062315
OpenAlex
W1559984405
Cited by
109
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3
FWCI
1.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
link.aps.org/licenses/aps-default-license (vor)
Locations
  • Physical Review A (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Physical Review Letters
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Army Research Office
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Keywords
Bayesian networks, amplitude amplification, approximate inference, quantum advantage, #P-hardness, sampling from distributions

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