Comparing the effects of Boltzmann machines as associative memory in Generative Adversarial Networks between classical and quantum sampling
Fuente:
arXiv
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Preprint |
| Publicado: |
2022
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| _version_ | 1866910729016180736 |
|---|---|
| author | Urushibata, Mitsuru Ohzeki, Masayuki Tanaka, Kazuyuki |
| author_facet | Urushibata, Mitsuru Ohzeki, Masayuki Tanaka, Kazuyuki |
| contents | 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. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2203_15220 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2022 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Comparing the effects of Boltzmann machines as associative memory in Generative Adversarial Networks between classical and quantum sampling Urushibata, Mitsuru Ohzeki, Masayuki Tanaka, Kazuyuki Disordered Systems and Neural Networks 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. |
| title | Comparing the effects of Boltzmann machines as associative memory in Generative Adversarial Networks between classical and quantum sampling |
| topic | Disordered Systems and Neural Networks |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.15220 |