论文标题

将玻尔兹曼机器作为经典和量子采样之间的生成对抗网络中的关联记忆进行比较

Comparing the effects of Boltzmann machines as associative memory in Generative Adversarial Networks between classical and quantum sampling

论文作者

Urushibata, Mitsuru, Ohzeki, Masayuki, Tanaka, Kazuyuki

论文摘要

我们研究了由生成对抗网络(GAN)举例说明的机器学习(ML)模型的量子效应,这是一个有希望的深度学习框架。在一般的GAN框架中,发电机将均匀的噪声映射到假图像。在这项研究中,我们利用由标准gan和一个关联内存组成的关联对抗网络(AAN)。此外,我们设置了一个玻尔兹曼机器(BM),该机器是一个无方向的图形模型,该模型学习从歧视器中提取的低维特征作为内存。由于难以计算BM的对数可能性梯度,因此必须使用从具有暂定参数的BM获得的样品平均值来近似它。为了计算样品平均值,经常使用马尔可夫链蒙特卡洛(MCMC)。在先前的研究中,使用量子退火设备进行了此操作,并将“量子” AAN的性能与标准GAN的性能进行了比较。但是,它的性能比标准gan更好。在这项研究中,我们介绍了两种方法来绘制样品:通过MCMC进行经典采样和通过量子蒙特卡洛(QMC)模拟进行量子采样,这是经典计算机上的量子模拟。然后,我们比较这些方法,以研究量子采样是否有利。具体而言,计算鉴别损失,发电机损失,成立分数和Fréchet成立距离,我们讨论了AAN的可能性。我们表明,通过MCMC和QMC训练的AAN在训练过程中更稳定,并且比标准gan产生更多的图像。但是,结果表明,与MCMC相比,QMC模拟采样无差异。

We investigate the quantum effect on machine learning (ML) models exemplified by the Generative Adversarial Network (GAN), which is a promising deep learning framework. In the general GAN framework the generator maps uniform noise to a fake image. In this study, we utilize the Associative Adversarial Network (AAN), which consists of a standard GAN and an associative memory. Further, we set a Boltzmann Machine (BM), which is an undirected graphical model that learns low-dimensional features extracted from a discriminator, as the memory. Owing to difficulty calculating the BM's log-likelihood gradient, it is necessary to approximate it by using the sample mean obtained from the BM, which has tentative parameters. To calculate the sample mean, a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) is often used. In a previous study, this was performed using a quantum annealer device, and the performance of the "Quantum" AAN was compared to that of the standard GAN. However, its better performance than the standard GAN is not well understood. In this study, we introduce two methods to draw samples: classical sampling via MCMC and quantum sampling via quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) simulation, which is quantum simulation on the classical computer. Then, we compare these methods to investigate whether quantum sampling is advantageous. Specifically, calculating the discriminator loss, the generator loss, inception score and Fréchet inception distance, we discuss the possibility of AAN. We show that the AANs trained by both MCMC and QMC are more stable during training and produce more varied images than the standard GANs. However, the results indicate no difference in sampling by QMC simulation compared to that by MCMC.

扫码加入交流群

加入微信交流群

微信交流群二维码

扫码加入学术交流群,获取更多资源