Quantum Expectation-Maximization for Gaussian Mixture Models

Alessandro Luongo; Anupam Prakash; Iordanis Kerenidis

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 65 references

Quantum Expectation-Maximization for Gaussian Mixture Models

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A quantum EM algorithm fits Gaussian mixtures with per-iteration cost polylogarithmic in dataset size, staying within preset error of the classical result.

desk verdict A serious quantum EM paper whose per-iteration lemmas are coherent but whose headline convergence claim is not proven; worth refereeing, not accepting as-is. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06657 v2 pith:UEFEKAKO submitted 2019-08-19 quant-ph cs.DScs.LGstat.ML

Iordanis Kerenidis , Alessandro Luongo , Anupam Prakash This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcs.DScs.LGstat.ML

keywords quantumexpectation-maximizationGaussianmixturemodelsmachinelearningmaximumlikelihoodestimationaposteriorilinearalgebraamplitudeunsupervised

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to establish that Expectation-Maximization, the standard iterative method for fitting mixture models, can be carried out on a quantum computer so that each iteration's runtime is polylogarithmic in the number of training samples while the returned model stays within user-specified error of classical EM's model. This matters because classical EM touches every data point at every iteration, with per-iteration cost $O(k n d^2)$, so for very large datasets the quantum version would be exponentially faster in $n$ at the price of polynomial dependence on dimension, number of components, condition numbers, and error parameters. The authors further claim the same construction fits any exponential-family mixture and can produce MAP estimates, and they report a speaker-recognition experiment in which noise-injected QEM-style training achieved slightly higher accuracy than the classical baseline. If these claims hold, QEM would be one of the few quantum machine learning algorithms with a clear per-iteration speedup for a workhorse unsupervised method.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the responsibility vectors $R_j=(r_{1j},\dots,r_{nj})$ — the posterior weights assigning each data point to mixture component $j$ — together with quantum access to the data matrix $V$. QEM writes $R_j$ as amplitudes of a quantum state, then applies quantum linear algebra (block-encoded multiplication of $V^T$ by the state) to compute the new mean $\mu_j = V^T R_j / (n\theta_j)$ and the new covariance $\Sigma_j'$ up to a rank-one correction, recovering classical numbers by amplitude estimation and vector-state tomography. The Lipschitz property of the softmax function bounds the error introduced when responsibilities are computed from noisy Gaussian exponents, and the approximate-GMM definition tracks the effect of per-iteration error on the output model.

What would settle it

Simulate QEM's per-iteration noise as in Definition 2 on a suite of Gaussian mixture models with known parameters, running both QEM and classical EM from identical initializations for many iterations; if the distance between the QEM and classical parameter trajectories grows with the number of iterations rather than staying bounded by the per-iteration error, the no-accumulation assumption is false and the convergence claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated as Theorem 4.10, is that with quantum access to a Gaussian mixture model and to the dataset matrix $V \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$, one iteration of Quantum Expectation-Maximization fits a Maximum Likelihood (or Maximum A Posteriori) estimate of a $k$-component GMM in time dominated by $\widetilde O(d^2 k^{4.5}\eta^3\kappa(V)\kappa(\Sigma)\mu(\Sigma)/\delta_\mu^3)$, polylogarithmic in $n$. The returned model is an approximate GMM in the sense of Definition 2: its mixing weights are within $\delta_\theta$ of the error-free classical EM update, each mean is within $\delta_\mu$, and each covariance matrix is within $\delta_\mu\sqrt{\eta}$, where $\eta$ is the maximum squared norm of a data vector. The same machinery is claimed to extend to mixture models whose base distributions lie in the exponential family, and to MAP estimation by classical post-processing of the ML parameter estimates.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that QEM converges in about the same number of iterations as classical EM depends on the unproved assumption that the per-iteration errors do not accumulate, so the noisy updates stay close to the noiseless EM path and the likelihood-based stopping rule does not stop early.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the per-iteration bound holds, then for large $n$ the classical per-iteration cost $O(k n d^2)$ is replaced by a cost polylogarithmic in $n$, so large datasets are the natural advantage regime.
The approximate model returned at each iteration matches classical EM up to $\delta_\theta$ in mixing weights, $\delta_\mu$ in means, and $\delta_\mu\sqrt{\eta}$ in covariance matrices, so downstream tasks inherit the approximation.
The same coherent-responsibility construction applies to any exponential-family mixture, with the Gaussian exponent and log-determinant replaced by the family's sufficient statistics and cumulant function.
MAP estimates cost the same per-iteration time, because the MAP update is a classical computation on top of the recovered ML parameter estimates.
Using $\ell^\infty$ tomography can remove the $d^2$ factor from the covariance-estimation runtime, which would help high-dimensional cases.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper does not prove an iteration-count bound; if a future analysis shows per-iteration noise accumulates at most linearly, the total runtime would be (number of classical EM iterations) times polylog$(n)$, making the speedup practical for very large datasets.
Because the construction is built from generic quantum linear-algebra primitives, the same parameterized analysis could be applied to other iterative fixed-point algorithms beyond mixtures, such as soft k-means and related clustering methods.
The authors' speaker-recognition experiment suggests the injected noise acts as a regularizer; a testable extension is to run QEM with deliberately larger $\delta$ values and check whether held-out accuracy improves on other datasets, as it did in their experiment.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Alex,

This paper is a solid piece of quantum algorithm design with one load-bearing gap that the authors themselves half-concede. The genuinely new parts are the soft-clustering QEM for GMMs, the per-iteration error analysis (Lemmas 4.3–4.8), and the extensions to exponential-family mixtures and MAP estimates. That is a real advance over q-means and over the concurrent hard-clustering QEM by Miyahara et al., which they acknowledge. The experiments on VoxForge are honest parameter measurements—they perturb a classical EM to mimic the quantum noise model and report condition numbers, μ values, and accuracy. That is useful, but it is not a test of the quantum algorithm itself.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress test lands. Theorem 4.10 bounds a single iteration from an exact input. There is no stability or contraction analysis of the EM update under input perturbations, so error accumulation over iterations is not controlled. The stopping criterion in Algorithm 1 uses E[p], while the classical EM stopping criterion uses E[log p]; Lemma 4.9 estimates only E[p], and no bound connects the two. The abstract's claim of "convergence and precision guarantees similar to the classical algorithm" is therefore unsupported. The paper even says "we expect" the iteration count to match classical EM, which is an explicit admission that the key missing piece is not a proof but a conjecture. This is not a minor technicality—it is the difference between claiming QEM fits a GMM and claiming QEM produces a model that may drift far from the classical trajectory.

That said, I think the reader's take is slightly too harsh on novelty and soundness. The per-iteration lemmas are detailed and mostly coherent; the softmax Lipschitz analysis for responsibilities is clean; the runtime decomposition is thorough. The citation pattern is fine: it builds on published quantum linear algebra and q-means results, and the concurrent work is properly acknowledged. The central flaw is real, but it is addressable: a Lipschitz bound on the EM update, or an explicit assumption that the noisy trajectory stays close, would turn this from a heuristic into a theorem.

Bottom line: this deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject, but it should not be accepted without heavy revision. I would not cite it yet for its convergence claims, but I'd keep it in mind for the per-iteration techniques. Bring it to the reading group if you want a concrete case of a quantum ML paper with a clean per-step analysis and a missing global guarantee.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Quantum Expectation-Maximization (QEM) for fitting Gaussian mixture models. The algorithm implements one EM iteration with quantum subroutines: quantum access to the data and current model, computation of responsibilities via Gaussian evaluation and softmax, updates of mixing weights, centroids, and covariance matrices via quantum linear algebra and tomography, and a quantum estimate of the likelihood for the stopping test. The authors prove per-iteration error bounds and a per-iteration runtime polylogarithmic in n and polynomial in d, k, condition numbers, and inverse precisions, and they extend the approach to exponential-family mixtures and MAP estimation. The paper also reports experiments on the VoxForge speaker recognition dataset estimating the runtime parameters and the effect of injecting noise during training.

Significance. If the advertised guarantees held in full, this would be a noteworthy contribution: it would give an exponential speedup over classical EM's O(knd^2) per-iteration cost in the dataset size n, generalize q-means to soft clustering, and cover a broad class of mixture models. The per-iteration analysis is substantial and mostly coherent, and it builds on established tools (quantum linear algebra, amplitude estimation, tomography, and the q-means framework), with the dataset-dependent parameters identified and estimated experimentally. However, the central convergence and precision guarantee stated in the abstract is not proved: the results bound one noisy EM step, not the iterated process, and the stopping rule is not shown to match classical EM's. The experimental noise study is a useful sanity check but does not measure closeness to the noiseless EM trajectory. With the convergence claim removed or replaced by a per-iteration guarantee under appropriate stability assumptions, the per-iteration complexity result would stand as the paper's solid contribution.

major comments (4)

[§4, Definition 2, Theorem 4.10] The central convergence claim is not established. Definition 2 defines an 'approximate GMM' as a model that stays δ-close, at every iteration t, to the error-free classical EM trajectory, and the abstract states that QEM has 'convergence and precision guarantees similar to the classical algorithm.' What the lemmas actually prove is per-iteration closeness: Lemmas 4.5, 4.7, and 4.8 show that if the current parameters were exact, one quantum update would return parameters δθ/δμ-close to the next classical EM iterate. The input at iteration t is itself an estimate, and no Lipschitz, contraction, or stability bound for the EM update under input perturbations is given, so errors may accumulate and the noisy trajectory may drift from the classical one. Theorem 4.10 bounds the time of a single iteration and says nothing about the number of iterations or the total error. The sentence in Section 1, 'we expect the number of iterations of the quantum algorithm to be similar to the number of iteration of the classical case, as the convergence rate is not expected to change', is an explicit conjecture, not a proof; the numerical experiment in Section 6 adds noise but does not measure distance to the noiseless EM trajectory, so it does not fill this gap. Consequently, the advertised convergence and precision guarantee, and the 'Ensure' statement in Algorithm 1 that the output locally maximizes the likelihood up to tolerance, are unsupported.
[Algorithm 1 (line 11), Section 3, Lemma 4.9] The quantum stopping rule is not the classical one and the two are not connected. Algorithm 1 stops when |E[p(vi;γ_t)]−E[p(vi;γ_{t−1})]|<ετ, while the classical EM described in Section 3 stops on |E[log p(vi;γ_t)]−E[log p(vi;γ_{t+1})]|<ετ (Algorithm 2 in the appendix uses the total log-likelihood difference). Lemma 4.9 only provides an estimator for E[p(vi;γ)], and the text notes the inequality n log E[p(vi)] ≥ ∑_i log p(vi). A small change in E[p] does not imply a small change in E[log p], because Gaussian densities can be arbitrarily small, so the quantum procedure may terminate when the classical log-likelihood increment is still large or, conversely, may not terminate when the classical rule would. Since the stopping condition is part of the claimed convergence behavior, this gap is load-bearing.
[Introduction Eq. (1), Lemma 4.8, Theorem 4.10] The stated dominant running time is internally inconsistent. The introductory Result, Eq. (1), gives ~O(d^2 k^{4.5} η^3 κ(V)κ(Σ)µ(Σ)/δ_μ^3). Theorem 4.10 gives T_Σ = ~O(k d^2 η κ^2(V)(µ(V')+η^2 k^{3.5} κ(Σ)µ(Σ))/δ_μ^3), whose dominant term is d^2 k^{4.5} η^3 κ^2(V)κ(Σ)µ(Σ)/δ_μ^3, i.e., a factor κ(V) larger. Lemma 4.8, on the other hand, states T_Σ with a single factor κ(V) outside the parentheses rather than κ^2(V). These three statements cannot all be correct, and the discrepancy affects the claimed speedup, since κ(V) can be large.
[Lemma 4.8 and Algorithm 1] The algorithm as stated does not guarantee that the recovered covariance estimates are positive semidefinite. Lemma 4.8 returns a matrix that is δμ√η-close to the true covariance in Frobenius norm, but closeness in Frobenius norm does not imply positive definiteness; a small perturbation can create negative eigenvalues. The subsequent steps of Algorithm 1 require evaluating Gaussian densities and log-determinants, which are defined only for positive definite covariance matrices. The theoretical part does not specify a projection onto the positive semidefinite cone or an eigenvalue threshold, although the experiments in Section 6 use thresholding. Without such a step or an additional assumption, the algorithm is not well-defined for all iterations.

minor comments (6)

[Theorem 4.2] Theorem 4.2 and its proof disagree on the dependence on κ(Σ): the statement has √κ(Σ) in TDet, while the proof concludes with κ(Σ); please reconcile.
[Lemma 4.4 proof] In the proof of Lemma 4.4, the bound √n/‖R_j‖ is written as O(1/k); with the dataset assumption θ_j = Θ(1/k), this quantity is Θ(k). The subsequent choice ϵ ≤ ϵ_1/k is consistent with the corrected bound, so this appears to be a typo.
[Algorithm 1 and Section 4.1.3] Algorithm 1, line 8 refers to 'Theorem 4.9' but the statement is Lemma 4.9; Section 4.1.3 contains the typo 'conveniente'; Section 4 contains 'remainig' and 'algortihm'.
[Lemma 2.3 proof] Lemma 2.2 is stated as a lemma but is called Theorem 2.2 in the proof of Lemma 2.3.
[Section 3 and Algorithm 2] Section 3 states the stopping criterion as |E[log p(vi;γ_t)]−E[log p(vi;γ_{t+1})]|<ετ, whereas Algorithm 2 in the appendix stops on |ℓ(γ_{t−1};V)−ℓ(γ_t;V)|<τ; these two conventions should be reconciled.
[Definition 3] The notation in Definition 3 writing |i⟩|0⟩|0⟩→|i⟩|vec[v_i v_i^T]⟩=|i⟩|v_i⟩|v_i⟩ should be clarified: the equality holds only after normalization and is between the normalized state of vec[v_i v_i^T] and the tensor product |v_i⟩|v_i⟩.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: QEM is a quantum implementation of the classical EM update; the target is the error-free classical EM trajectory, not an object defined by the quantum algorithm's own parameters.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense: the classical EM update rules (Eqs. 18-21) define the target; Lemmas 4.5, 4.7, and 4.8 implement those exact updates using quantum subroutines and bound per-iteration errors; Theorem 4.10 combines the runtimes. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to its own input by construction. The self-citations to prior quantum linear algebra, tomography, and q-means work are used as building blocks with stated assumptions, not as an unverified premise that forces the conclusion. The paper does explicitly concede a limitation: 'we expect the number of iterations of the quantum algorithm to be similar to the number of iteration of the classical case, as the convergence rate is not expected to change.' This is a missing proof of iteration-count transfer, and Algorithm 1's stopping rule on E[p] rather than on E[log p] is not reconciled with the classical stopping criterion stated in Section 3. Those are correctness and rigor gaps, but they are not circular reductions: the theorem's per-iteration claim does not assume the convergence conclusion, and the approximate-GMM target is defined by closeness to classical EM, not by the quantum algorithm's own outputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central runtime claim rests on the balanced-mixture assumption in Eq. 9, on the availability of polylog quantum access to the data, and on the unproven benign accumulation of errors across iterations. The experiment also introduces hand-chosen thresholds and noise scales.

free parameters (3)

covariance eigenvalue threshold tau_Sigma = 0.07
In Section 6, singular values of covariance matrices below 0.07 are discarded to bound the effective condition number kappa(Sigma); this choice affects the runtime expression and the measured accuracy, and is not derived from first principles.
noise perturbation scales delta_theta, delta_mu = delta_theta=0.038, delta_mu=0.5
Used in the classical simulation of the perturbed EM algorithm and in the reported 98.7% accuracy; these are chosen by the authors in the experiment, not set by the algorithm.
log-likelihood tolerance epsilon_tau = 0.007 (7e-3)
Stopping tolerance used in the experimental convergence runs; affects the number of iterations and is stated as an input in Algorithm 1.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Quantum access to the dataset and model can be implemented in polylog time, via QRAM or block encoding.
Assumed in Definition 3 and Theorem 2.7; without this, the polylog(n) runtime claim has no operational meaning.
domain assumption The mixture is balanced: for all clusters j,l, sum_i r_ij / sum_i r_il = Theta(1), equivalently theta_j/theta_l = Theta(1).
Equation (9) in Section 4; used in Lemma 4.4 to bound sqrt(n)/||R_j|| = O(1/k), giving the dependence on k rather than on the smallest mixing weight.
ad hoc to paper Errors introduced by QEM at each iteration do not accumulate, so the noisy sequence converges to a local optimum of the likelihood.
Not proven in the paper; Section 1 states it as an expectation and Section 6 provides a single classical simulation. This is required for the abstract's convergence claim.
standard math The cited quantum linear algebra and tomography theorems have the stated runtimes and success probabilities.
Taken from Chakraborty et al., Gilyen et al., and Kerenidis & Prakash; not re-derived in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Expectation-Maximization for Gaussian Mixture Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UEFEKAKO

@misc{pith2026190806657,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Expectation-Maximization for Gaussian Mixture Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UEFEKAKO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06657}
}

abstract

The Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm is a fundamental tool in unsupervised machine learning. It is often used as an efficient way to solve Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation problems, especially for models with latent variables. It is also the algorithm of choice to fit mixture models: generative models that represent unlabelled points originating from $k$ different processes, as samples from $k$ multivariate distributions. In this work we define and use a quantum version of EM to fit a Gaussian Mixture Model. Given quantum access to a dataset of $n$ vectors of dimension $d$, our algorithm has convergence and precision guarantees similar to the classical algorithm, but the runtime is only polylogarithmic in the number of elements in the training set, and is polynomial in other parameters - as the dimension of the feature space, and the number of components in the mixture. We generalize further the algorithm in two directions. First, we show how to fit any mixture model of probability distributions in the exponential family. Then, we show how to use this algorithm to compute the Maximum a Posteriori (MAP) estimate of a mixture model: the Bayesian approach to likelihood estimation problems. We discuss the performance of the algorithm on a dataset that is expected to be classified successfully by this algorithm, arguing that on those cases we can give strong guarantees on the runtime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06657 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Evolution of κ(Vi) where Vi is the data matrix obtained by all the utterances available from the i-th speaker to the training set. For all the different speaker, the condition number of the matrix Vi is stable, and does not increase while adding vectors to the training set. We leave for future work the task of testing the algorithm with further experiments (i.e. bigger and different types of datasets), and further o… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

[1]

Quantum speed-up for unsupervised learning

A \" meur, E., Brassard, G., and Gambs, S. Quantum speed-up for unsupervised learning. Machine Learning, 90 0 (2): 0 261--287, 2013

work page 2013
[2]

M., Delgado, A., Bardhan, B

Arrazola, J. M., Delgado, A., Bardhan, B. R., and Lloyd, S. Quantum-inspired algorithms in practice. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10415, 2019

arXiv 1905
[3]

and Vassilvitskii, S

Arthur, D. and Vassilvitskii, S. k-means++: The advantages of careful seeding. In Proceedings of the eighteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms, pp.\ 1027--1035. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2007

work page 2007
[4]

A., Ramli, A

Balafar, M. A., Ramli, A. R., Saripan, M. I., and Mashohor, S. Review of brain mri image segmentation methods. Artificial Intelligence Review, 33 0 (3): 0 261--274, 2010

work page 2010
[5]

Quantum machine learning

Biamonte, J., Wittek, P., Pancotti, N., Rebentrost, P., Wiebe, N., and Lloyd, S. Quantum machine learning. Nature, 549 0 (7671): 0 195--202, 2017

work page 2017
[6]

Choosing starting values for the EM algorithm for getting the highest likelihood in multivariate gaussian mixture models

Biernacki, C., Celeux, G., and Govaert, G. Choosing starting values for the EM algorithm for getting the highest likelihood in multivariate gaussian mixture models. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 41 0 (3-4): 0 561--575, 2003

work page 2003
[7]

Bilmes, J. A. et al. A gentle tutorial of the EM algorithm and its application to parameter estimation for gaussian mixture and hidden markov models. \: , 1998

work page 1998
[8]

and Bujna, K

Bl \"o mer, J. and Bujna, K. Simple methods for initializing the EM algorithm for gaussian mixture models. CoRR, 2013

work page 2013

Show all 65 references

[9]

A randomized algorithm for approximating the log determinant of a symmetric positive definite matrix

Boutsidis, C., Drineas, P., Kambadur, P., Kontopoulou, E.-M., and Zouzias, A. A randomized algorithm for approximating the log determinant of a symmetric positive definite matrix. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 533: 0 95--117, 2017

2017
[10]

Quantum Amplitude Amplification and Estimation

Brassard, G., H yer, P., Mosca, M., and Tapp, A. Quantum Amplitude Amplification and Estimation . Contemporary Mathematics, 305, 2002

2002
[11]

and Govaert, G

Celeux, G. and Govaert, G. A classification EM algorithm for clustering and two stochastic versions. Computational statistics & Data analysis, 14 0 (3): 0 315--332, 1992

1992
[12]

Quantum wasserstein generative adversarial networks

Chakrabarti, S., Yiming, H., Li, T., Feizi, S., and Wu, X. Quantum wasserstein generative adversarial networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp.\ 6778--6789, 2019

2019
[13]

The power of block-encoded matrix powers: improved regression techniques via faster Hamiltonian simulation

Chakraborty, S., Gily \'e n, A., and Jeffery, S. The power of block-encoded matrix powers: improved regression techniques via faster Hamiltonian simulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.01973, 2018

2018 arXiv
[14]

Quantum-inspired sublinear classical algorithms for solving low-rank linear systems

Chia, N.-H., Lin, H.-H., and Wang, C. Quantum-inspired sublinear classical algorithms for solving low-rank linear systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.04852, 2018

2018 arXiv
[15]

Church, K. W. and Gale, W. A. Poisson mixtures. Natural Language Engineering, 1 0 (2): 0 163--190, 1995

1995
[16]

Learning mixtures of gaussians

Dasgupta, S. Learning mixtures of gaussians. In 40th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No. 99CB37039), pp.\ 634--644. IEEE, 1999

1999
[17]

P., Laird, N

Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., and Rubin, D. B. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the royal statistical society. Series B (methodological), pp.\ 1--38, 1977

1977
[18]

and Tanner, D

Dexter, A. and Tanner, D. Packing densities of mixtures of spheres with log-normal size distributions. Nature physical science, 238 0 (80): 0 31, 1972

1972
[19]

S., et al

Fan, X., Yuan, Y., Liu, J. S., et al. The EM algorithm and the rise of computational biology. Statistical Science, 25 0 (4): 0 476--491, 2010

2010
[20]

and Neven, H

Farhi, E. and Neven, H. Classification with quantum neural networks on near term processors. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.06002, 2018

2018 arXiv
[21]

A., and Zhou, S

Ghitany, M., Maller, R. A., and Zhou, S. Exponential mixture models with long-term survivors and covariates. Journal of multivariate Analysis, 49 0 (2): 0 218--241, 1994

1994
[23]

Quantum-inspired low-rank stochastic regression with logarithmic dependence on the dimension

Gily \'e n, A., Lloyd, S., and Tang, E. Quantum-inspired low-rank stochastic regression with logarithmic dependence on the dimension. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.04909, 2018 b

2018 arXiv
[24]

H., and Wiebe, N

Gily \'e n, A., Su, Y., Low, G. H., and Wiebe, N. Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.01838, 2018 c

2018 arXiv
[25]

Large-scale log-determinant computation through stochastic chebyshev expansions

Han, I., Malioutov, D., and Shin, J. Large-scale log-determinant computation through stochastic chebyshev expansions. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 908--917, 2015

2015
[26]

W., Hassidim, A., and Lloyd, S

Harrow, A. W., Hassidim, A., and Lloyd, S. Quantum Algorithm for Linear Systems of Equations . Physical Review Letters, 103 0 (15): 0 150502, 10 2009. ISSN 0031-9007. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.150502. URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.150502

2009 doi
[27]

The Elements of Statistical Learning , volume 1 of Springer Series in Statistics

Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., and Friedman, J. The Elements of Statistical Learning , volume 1 of Springer Series in Statistics. Springer New York, New York, NY, 2009. ISBN 978-0-387-84857-0. doi:10.1007/b94608. URL http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/b94608

2009 doi
[28]

Experimental realization of 105-qubit random access quantum memory

Jiang, N., Pu, Y.-F., Chang, W., Li, C., Zhang, S., and Duan, L.-M. Experimental realization of 105-qubit random access quantum memory. npj Quantum Information, 5 0 (1): 0 28, 2019

2019
[29]

T., Moitra, A., and Valiant, G

Kalai, A. T., Moitra, A., and Valiant, G. Disentangling gaussians. Communications of the ACM, 55 0 (2): 0 113--120, 2012

2012
[30]

The spectral method for general mixture models

Kannan, R., Salmasian, H., and Vempala, S. The spectral method for general mixture models. In International Conference on Computational Learning Theory, pp.\ 444--457. Springer, 2005

2005
[31]

Kearns, M., Mansour, Y., and Ng, A. Y. An information-theoretic analysis of hard and soft assignment methods for clustering. In Learning in graphical models, pp.\ 495--520. Springer, 1998

1998
[32]

and Luongo, A

Kerenidis, I. and Luongo, A. Quantum classification of the MNIST dataset via S low F eature A nalysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.08837, 2018

2018 arXiv
[33]

and Prakash, A

Kerenidis, I. and Prakash, A. Quantum recommendation systems. Proceedings of the 8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, 2017 a

2017
[34]

and Prakash, A

Kerenidis, I. and Prakash, A. Quantum recommendation systems. In 8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2017). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2017 b

2017
[35]

and Prakash, A

Kerenidis, I. and Prakash, A. A quantum interior point method for LPs and SDPs . arXiv:1808.09266, 2018

2018 arXiv
[36]

and Prakash, A

Kerenidis, I. and Prakash, A. Quantum gradient descent for linear systems and least squares. Physical Review A, 2020

2020
[37]

q-means: A quantum algorithm for unsupervised machine learning

Kerenidis, I., Landman, J., Luongo, A., and Prakash, A. q-means: A quantum algorithm for unsupervised machine learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp.\ 4136--4146, 2019 a

2019
[38]

Quantum algorithms for deep convolutional neural networks

Kerenidis, I., Landman, J., and Prakash, A. Quantum algorithms for deep convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.01117, 2019 b

1911 arXiv
[39]

Speaker identification based on gaussian mixture models

Kumar, A. Speaker identification based on gaussian mixture models. https://github.com/abhijeet3922/Speaker-identification-using-GMMs. accessed 20/07/2019

2019
[40]

L., Biemond, J., and Boekee, D

Lagendijk, R. L., Biemond, J., and Boekee, D. E. Identification and restoration of noisy blurred images using the expectation-maximization algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 38 0 (7): 0 1180--1191, 1990

1990
[41]

Experimental realization of a quantum support vector machine

Li, Z., Liu, X., Xu, N., and Du, J. Experimental realization of a quantum support vector machine. Physical review letters, 114 0 (14): 0 140504, 2015

2015
[42]

Lindsay, B. G. Mixture models: theory, geometry and applications. In NSF-CBMS regional conference series in probability and statistics, pp.\ i--163. JSTOR, 1995

1995
[43]

and Rubin, D

Liu, C. and Rubin, D. B. ML estimation of the t distribution using EM and its extensions, ECM and ECME . Statistica Sinica, pp.\ 19--39, 1995

1995
[45]

Quantum algorithms for supervised and unsupervised machine learning

Lloyd, S., Mohseni, M., and Rebentrost, P. Quantum algorithms for supervised and unsupervised machine learning . arXiv, 1307.0411: 0 1--11, 7 2013 b . URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.0411

2013 arXiv
[46]

Quantum expectation-maximization algorithm

Miyahara, H., Aihara, K., and Lechner, W. Quantum expectation-maximization algorithm. Personal Communication, 2019

2019
[47]

Algorithmic aspects of machine learning

Moitra, A. Algorithmic aspects of machine learning. Cambridge University Press, 2018

2018
[48]

and Valiant, G

Moitra, A. and Valiant, G. Settling the polynomial learnability of mixtures of gaussians. In 2010 IEEE 51st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp.\ 93--102. IEEE, 2010

2010
[49]

Quantum algorithms: an overview

Montanaro, A. Quantum algorithms: an overview. npj Quantum Information, 2 0 (1): 0 1--8, 2016

2016
[50]

Murphy, K. P. Machine learning: a probabilistic perspective. MIT press, 2012

2012
[51]

Cs229 lecture notes - machine learning

Ng, A. Cs229 lecture notes - machine learning. Lecture notes CS229 Stanford, 2012

2012
[52]

Nielsen, M. A. and Chuang, I. Quantum computation and quantum information, 2002

2002
[53]

S., Hong, S., et al

Otterbach, J., Manenti, R., Alidoust, N., Bestwick, A., Block, M., Bloom, B., Caldwell, S., Didier, N., Fried, E. S., Hong, S., et al. Unsupervised machine learning on a hybrid quantum computer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.05771, 2017

2017 arXiv
[54]

Pearson, K. X. contributions to the mathematical theory of evolution.—ii. skew variation in homogeneous material. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.(A.), 0 (186): 0 343--414, 1895
[55]

Scikit-learn: Machine learning in P ython

Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M., and Duchesnay, E. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in P ython. Journal of ...

2011
[56]

Extracting robust and accurate features via a robust information bottleneck

Pensia, A., Jog, V., and Loh, P.-L. Extracting robust and accurate features via a robust information bottleneck. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.06893, 2019

1910 arXiv
[57]

A., Quatieri, T

Reynolds, D. A., Quatieri, T. F., and Dunn, R. B. Speaker verification using adapted gaussian mixture models. Digital signal processing, 10 0 (1-3): 0 19--41, 2000

2000
[58]

Rudin, W. et al. Principles of mathematical analysis, volume 3. McGraw-hill New York, 1964

1964
[59]

D., and Orsucci, D

Suba s , Y., Somma, R. D., and Orsucci, D. Quantum algorithms for systems of linear equations inspired by adiabatic quantum computing. Physical review letters, 122 0 (6): 0 060504, 2019

2019
[60]

Quantum-inspired classical algorithms for principal component analysis and supervised clustering

Tang, E. Quantum-inspired classical algorithms for principal component analysis and supervised clustering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.00414, 2018 a

2018 arXiv
[61]

A quantum-inspired classical algorithm for recommendation systems

Tang, E. A quantum-inspired classical algorithm for recommendation systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.04271, 2018 b

2018 arXiv
[62]

Free speech

Voxforge.org. Free speech... recognition - voxforge.org. http://www.voxforge.org/. accessed 20/07/2019

2019
[64]

Wiebe, N., Kapoor, A., and Svore, K. M. Quantum Algorithms for Nearest-Neighbor Methods for Supervised and Unsupervised Learning . 2014 b . URL https://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.2142.pdf

2014 arXiv
[65]

Hardening Quantum Machine Learning Against Adversaries

Wiebe, N., Shankar, R., and Kumar, S. Hardening Quantum Machine Learning Against Adversaries . 2017

2017
[66]

and Mare c ek, J

Xu, J. and Mare c ek, J. Parameter estimation in gaussian mixture models with malicious noise, without balanced mixing coefficients. In 2018 56th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), pp.\ 446--453. IEEE, 2018

2018
[67]

and Wang, J

Yin, J. and Wang, J. A dirichlet multinomial mixture model-based approach for short text clustering. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pp.\ 233--242. ACM, 2014

2014
[68]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Quantum speed-up for unsupervised learning

A \" meur, E., Brassard, G., and Gambs, S. Quantum speed-up for unsupervised learning. Machine Learning, 90 0 (2): 0 261--287, 2013

work page 2013

[2] [2]

M., Delgado, A., Bardhan, B

Arrazola, J. M., Delgado, A., Bardhan, B. R., and Lloyd, S. Quantum-inspired algorithms in practice. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10415, 2019

arXiv 1905

[3] [3]

and Vassilvitskii, S

Arthur, D. and Vassilvitskii, S. k-means++: The advantages of careful seeding. In Proceedings of the eighteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms, pp.\ 1027--1035. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2007

work page 2007

[4] [4]

A., Ramli, A

Balafar, M. A., Ramli, A. R., Saripan, M. I., and Mashohor, S. Review of brain mri image segmentation methods. Artificial Intelligence Review, 33 0 (3): 0 261--274, 2010

work page 2010

[5] [5]

Quantum machine learning

Biamonte, J., Wittek, P., Pancotti, N., Rebentrost, P., Wiebe, N., and Lloyd, S. Quantum machine learning. Nature, 549 0 (7671): 0 195--202, 2017

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Choosing starting values for the EM algorithm for getting the highest likelihood in multivariate gaussian mixture models

Biernacki, C., Celeux, G., and Govaert, G. Choosing starting values for the EM algorithm for getting the highest likelihood in multivariate gaussian mixture models. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 41 0 (3-4): 0 561--575, 2003

work page 2003

[7] [7]

Bilmes, J. A. et al. A gentle tutorial of the EM algorithm and its application to parameter estimation for gaussian mixture and hidden markov models. \: , 1998

work page 1998

[8] [8]

and Bujna, K

Bl \"o mer, J. and Bujna, K. Simple methods for initializing the EM algorithm for gaussian mixture models. CoRR, 2013

work page 2013