REVIEW 2 cited by
Provable Advantage in Quantum PAC Learning
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
We revisit the problem of characterising the complexity of Quantum PAC learning, as introduced by Bshouty and Jackson [SIAM J. Comput. 1998, 28, 1136-1153]. Several quantum advantages have been demonstrated in this setting, however, none are generic: they apply to particular concept classes and typically only work when the distribution that generates the data is known. In the general case, it was recently shown by Arunachalam and de Wolf [JMLR, 19 (2018) 1-36] that quantum PAC learners can only achieve constant factor advantages over classical PAC learners. We show that with a natural extension of the definition of quantum PAC learning used by Arunachalam and de Wolf, we can achieve a generic advantage in quantum learning. To be precise, for any concept class $\mathcal{C}$ of VC dimension $d$, we show there is an $(\epsilon, \delta)$-quantum PAC learner with sample complexity \[ O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon}}\left[d+ \log(\frac{1}{\delta})\right]\log^9(1/\epsilon)\right). \] Up to polylogarithmic factors, this is a square root improvement over the classical learning sample complexity. We show the tightness of our result by proving an $\Omega(d/\sqrt{\epsilon})$ lower bound that matches our upper bound up to polylogarithmic factors.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Analysis of the sample complexity for PAC-learning functions defined over quantum states
In a quantum PAC-learning model where examples are labeled quantum states, the VC-dimension alone does not determine sample complexity; new bounds based on quantum state distinguishability are derived.
-
Quantum Learning with Tunable Loss Functions
Proposes QTERM for quantum process learning, but the proof rests on an incorrect equality E[e^{γY}] = e^{γE[Y]} for measurement bits, invalidating the sample complexity and PAC claims.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.