skip to main content

Title: Quantum codes from neural networks
Abstract

We examine the usefulness of applying neural networks as a variational state ansatz for many-body quantum systems in the context of quantum information-processing tasks. In the neural network state ansatz, the complex amplitude function of a quantum state is computed by a neural network. The resulting multipartite entanglement structure captured by this ansatz has proven rich enough to describe the ground states and unitary dynamics of various physical systems of interest. In the present paper, we initiate the study of neural network states in quantum information-processing tasks. We demonstrate that neural network states are capable of efficiently representing quantum codes for quantum information transmission and quantum error correction, supplying further evidence for the usefulness of neural network states to describe multipartite entanglement. In particular, we show the following main results: (a) neural network states yield quantum codes with a high coherent information for two important quantum channels, the generalized amplitude damping channel and the dephrasure channel. These codes outperform all other known codes for these channels, and cannot be found using a direct parametrization of the quantum state. (b) For the depolarizing channel, the neural network state ansatz reliably finds the best known codes given by repetition codes. (c) more » Neural network states can be used to represent absolutely maximally entangled states, a special type of quantum error-correcting codes. In all three cases, the neural network state ansatz provides an efficient and versatile means as a variational parametrization of these highly entangled states.

« less
Authors:
;
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10303270
Journal Name:
New Journal of Physics
Volume:
22
Issue:
2
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
Article No. 023005
ISSN:
1367-2630
Publisher:
IOP Publishing
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)
    Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEGmore »channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9.« less
  2. Abstract

    A distributed sensing protocol uses a network of local sensing nodes to estimate a global feature of the network, such as a weighted average of locally detectable parameters. In the noiseless case, continuous-variable (CV) multipartite entanglement shared by the nodes can improve the precision of parameter estimation relative to the precision attainable by a network without shared entanglement; for an entangled protocol, the root mean square estimation error scales like 1/Mwith the numberMof sensing nodes, the so-called Heisenberg scaling, while for protocols without entanglement, the error scales like1/M. However, in the presence of loss and other noise sources, although multipartite entanglement still has some advantages for sensing displacements and phases, the scaling of the precision withMis less favorable. In this paper, we show that using CV error correction codes can enhance the robustness of sensing protocols against imperfections and reinstate Heisenberg scaling up to moderate values ofM. Furthermore, while previous distributed sensing protocols could measure only a single quadrature, we construct a protocol in which both quadratures can be sensed simultaneously. Our work demonstrates the value of CV error correction codes in realistic sensing scenarios.

  3. Abstract The possibility of achieving and controlling scalable classically entangled, i.e., inseparable, multipartite states, would fundamentally challenge the advantages of quantum systems in harnessing the power of complexity in information science. Here, we investigate experimentally the extent of classical entanglement in a $$16$$ 16 acoustic qubit-analogue platform. The acoustic qubit-analogue, a.k.a., logical phi-bit, results from the spectral partitioning of the nonlinear acoustic field of externally driven coupled waveguides. Each logical phi-bit is a two-level subsystem characterized by two independently measurable phases. The phi-bits are co-located within the same physical space enabling distance independent interactions. We chose a vector state representation of the $$16$$ 16 -phi-bit system which lies in a $${2}^{16}$$ 2 16 -dimensional Hilbert space. The calculation of the entropy of entanglement demonstrates the possibility of achieving inseparability of the vector state and of navigating the corresponding Hilbert space. This work suggests a new direction in harnessing the complexity of classical inseparability in information science.
  4. Abstract The ability to engineer parallel, programmable operations between desired qubits within a quantum processor is key for building scalable quantum information systems 1,2 . In most state-of-the-art approaches, qubits interact locally, constrained by the connectivity associated with their fixed spatial layout. Here we demonstrate a quantum processor with dynamic, non-local connectivity, in which entangled qubits are coherently transported in a highly parallel manner across two spatial dimensions, between layers of single- and two-qubit operations. Our approach makes use of neutral atom arrays trapped and transported by optical tweezers; hyperfine states are used for robust quantum information storage, and excitation into Rydberg states is used for entanglement generation 3–5 . We use this architecture to realize programmable generation of entangled graph states, such as cluster states and a seven-qubit Steane code state 6,7 . Furthermore, we shuttle entangled ancilla arrays to realize a surface code state with thirteen data and six ancillary qubits 8 and a toric code state on a torus with sixteen data and eight ancillary qubits 9 . Finally, we use this architecture to realize a hybrid analogue–digital evolution 2 and use it for measuring entanglement entropy in quantum simulations 10–12 , experimentally observing non-monotonic entanglement dynamicsmore »associated with quantum many-body scars 13,14 . Realizing a long-standing goal, these results provide a route towards scalable quantum processing and enable applications ranging from simulation to metrology.« less
  5. Abstract We consider information spreading measures in randomly initialized variational quantum circuits and introduce entanglement diagnostics for efficient variational quantum/classical computations. We establish a robust connection between entanglement measures and optimization accuracy by solving two eigensolver problems for Ising Hamiltonians with nearest-neighbor and long-range spin interactions. As the circuit depth affects the average entanglement of random circuit states, the entanglement diagnostics can identify a high-performing depth range for optimization tasks encoded in local Hamiltonians. We argue, based on an eigensolver problem for the Sachdev–Ye–Kitaev model, that entanglement alone is insufficient as a diagnostic to the approximation of volume-law entangled target states and that a large number of circuit parameters is needed for such an optimization task.