skip to main content

This content will become publicly available on June 1, 2023

Title: Quantum Machine Learning for Software Supply Chain Attacks: How Far Can We Go?
Quantum Computing (QC) has gained immense popularity as a potential solution to deal with the ever-increasing size of data and associated challenges leveraging the concept of quantum random access memory (QRAM). QC promises quadratic or exponential increases in computational time with quantum parallelism and thus offer a huge leap forward in the computation of Machine Learning algorithms. This paper analyzes speed up performance of QC when applied to machine learning algorithms, known as Quantum Machine Learning (QML). We applied QML methods such as Quantum Support Vector Machine (QSVM), and Quantum Neural Network (QNN) to detect Software Supply Chain (SSC) attacks. Due to the access limitations of real quantum computers, the QML methods were implemented on open-source quantum simulators such as IBM Qiskit and TensorFlow Quantum. We evaluated the performance of QML in terms of processing speed and accuracy and finally, compared with its classical counterparts. Interestingly, the experimental results differ to the speed up promises of QC by demonstrating higher computational time and lower accuracy in comparison to the classical approaches for SSC attacks.
Authors:
Award ID(s):
2100115 1723578
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10347034
Journal Name:
IEEE Conference on Computers, Software & Applications
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
530-538
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Quantum Computing has attracted much research attention because of its potential to achieve fundamental speed and efficiency improvements in various domains. Among different quantum algorithms, Parameterized Quantum Circuits (PQC) for Quantum Machine Learning (QML) show promises to realize quantum advantages on the current Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) Machines. Therefore, to facilitate the QML and PQC research, a recent python library called TorchQuantum has been released. It can construct, simulate, and train PQC for machine learning tasks with high speed and convenient debugging supports. Besides quantum for ML, we want to raise the community's attention on the reversed direction: ML for quantum. Specifically, the TorchQuantum library also supports using data-driven ML models to solve problems in quantum system research, such as predicting the impact of quantum noise on circuit fidelity and improving the quantum circuit compilation efficiency. This paper presents a case study of the ML for quantum part in TorchQuantum. Since estimating the noise impact on circuit reliability is an essential step toward understanding and mitigating noise, we propose to leverage classical ML to predict noise impact on circuit fidelity. Inspired by the natural graph representation of quantum circuits, we propose to leverage a graph transformer model to predict themore »noisy circuit fidelity. We firstly collect a large dataset with a variety of quantum circuits and obtain their fidelity on noisy simulators and real machines. Then we embed each circuit into a graph with gate and noise properties as node features, and adopt a graph transformer to predict the fidelity. We can avoid exponential classical simulation cost and efficiently estimate fidelity with polynomial complexity. Evaluated on 5 thousand random and algorithm circuits, the graph transformer predictor can provide accurate fidelity estimation with RMSE error 0.04 and outperform a simple neural network-based model by 0.02 on average. It can achieve 0.99 and 0.95 R2 scores for random and algorithm circuits, respectively. Compared with circuit simulators, the predictor has over 200× speedup for estimating the fidelity. The datasets and predictors can be accessed in the TorchQuantum library.« less
  2. Quantum computing promises to provide machine learning with computational advantages. However, noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) devices pose engineering challenges to realizing quantum machine learning (QML) advantages. Recently, a series of QML computational models inspired by the noise-tolerant dynamics on the brain have emerged as a means to circumvent the hardware limitations of NISQ devices. In this article, we introduce a quantum version of a recurrent neural network (RNN), a well-known model for neural circuits in the brain. Our quantum RNN (qRNN) makes use of the natural Hamiltonian dynamics of an ensemble of interacting spin-1/2 particles as a means for computation. In the limit where the Hamiltonian is diagonal, the qRNN recovers the dynamics of the classical version. Beyond this limit, we observe that the quantum dynamics of the qRNN provide it quantum computational features that can aid it in computation. To this end, we study a qRNN based on arrays of Rydberg atoms, and show that the qRNN is indeed capable of replicating the learning of several cognitive tasks such as multitasking, decision making, and long-term memory by taking advantage of several key features of this platform such as interatomic species interactions, and quantum many-body scars.
  3. Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms have important applications in counting problems and in machine learning problems, settings that involve estimating quantities that are difficult to compute exactly. How much can quantum computers speed up classical Markov chain algorithms? In this work we consider the problem of speeding up simulated annealing algorithms, where the stationary distributions of the Markov chains are Gibbs distributions at temperatures specified according to an annealing schedule. We construct a quantum algorithm that both adaptively constructs an annealing schedule and quantum samples at each temperature. Our adaptive annealing schedule roughly matches the length of the best classical adaptive annealing schedules and improves on nonadaptive temperature schedules by roughly a quadratic factor. Our dependence on the Markov chain gap matches other quantum algorithms and is quadratically better than what classical Markov chains achieve. Our algorithm is the first to combine both of these quadratic improvements. Like other quantum walk algorithms, it also improves on classical algorithms by producing “qsamples” instead of classical samples. This means preparing quantum states whose amplitudes are the square roots of the target probability distribution. In constructing the annealing schedule we make use of amplitude estimation, and we introduce a method for making amplitudemore »estimation nondestructive at almost no additional cost, a result that may have independent interest. Finally we demonstrate how this quantum simulated annealing algorithm can be applied to the problems of estimating partition functions and Bayesian inference.« less
  4. Quantum noise is the key challenge in Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) computers. Previous work for mitigating noise has primarily focused on gate-level or pulse-level noise-adaptive compilation. However, limited research has explored a higher level of optimization by making the quantum circuits themselves resilient to noise.In this paper, we propose QuantumNAS, a comprehensive framework for noise-adaptive co-search of the variational circuit and qubit mapping. Variational quantum circuits are a promising approach for constructing quantum neural networks for machine learning and variational ansatzes for quantum simulation. However, finding the best variational circuit and its optimal parameters is challenging due to the large design space and parameter training cost. We propose to decouple the circuit search from parameter training by introducing a novel SuperCircuit. The SuperCircuit is constructed with multiple layers of pre-defined parameterized gates (e.g., U3 and CU3) and trained by iteratively sampling and updating the parameter subsets (SubCircuits) of it. It provides an accurate estimation of SubCircuits performance trained from scratch. Then we perform an evolutionary co-search of SubCircuit and its qubit mapping. The SubCircuit performance is estimated with parameters inherited from SuperCircuit and simulated with real device noise models. Finally, we perform iterative gate pruning and finetuning to remove redundantmore »gates in a fine-grained manner.Extensively evaluated with 12 quantum machine learning (QML) and variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) benchmarks on 14 quantum computers, QuantumNAS significantly outperforms noise-unaware search, human, random, and existing noise-adaptive qubit mapping baselines. For QML tasks, QuantumNAS is the first to demonstrate over 95% 2-class, 85% 4-class, and 32% 10-class classification accuracy on real quantum computers. It also achieves the lowest eigenvalue for VQE tasks on H 2 , H 2 O, LiH, CH 4 , BeH 2 compared with UCCSD baselines. We also open-source the TorchQuantum library for fast training of parameterized quantum circuits to facilitate future research.« less
  5. Obeid, I. (Ed.)
    The Neural Engineering Data Consortium (NEDC) is developing the Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus (TUDP), an open source database of high-resolution images from scanned pathology samples [1], as part of its National Science Foundation-funded Major Research Instrumentation grant titled “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning” [2]. The long-term goal of this project is to release one million images. We have currently scanned over 100,000 images and are in the process of annotating breast tissue data for our first official corpus release, v1.0.0. This release contains 3,505 annotated images of breast tissue including 74 patients with cancerous diagnoses (out of a total of 296 patients). In this poster, we will present an analysis of this corpus and discuss the challenges we have faced in efficiently producing high quality annotations of breast tissue. It is well known that state of the art algorithms in machine learning require vast amounts of data. Fields such as speech recognition [3], image recognition [4] and text processing [5] are able to deliver impressive performance with complex deep learning models because they have developed large corpora to support training of extremely high-dimensional models (e.g., billions of parameters). Other fields that do notmore »have access to such data resources must rely on techniques in which existing models can be adapted to new datasets [6]. A preliminary version of this breast corpus release was tested in a pilot study using a baseline machine learning system, ResNet18 [7], that leverages several open-source Python tools. The pilot corpus was divided into three sets: train, development, and evaluation. Portions of these slides were manually annotated [1] using the nine labels in Table 1 [8] to identify five to ten examples of pathological features on each slide. Not every pathological feature is annotated, meaning excluded areas can include focuses particular to these labels that are not used for training. A summary of the number of patches within each label is given in Table 2. To maintain a balanced training set, 1,000 patches of each label were used to train the machine learning model. Throughout all sets, only annotated patches were involved in model development. The performance of this model in identifying all the patches in the evaluation set can be seen in the confusion matrix of classification accuracy in Table 3. The highest performing labels were background, 97% correct identification, and artifact, 76% correct identification. A correlation exists between labels with more than 6,000 development patches and accurate performance on the evaluation set. Additionally, these results indicated a need to further refine the annotation of invasive ductal carcinoma (“indc”), inflammation (“infl”), nonneoplastic features (“nneo”), normal (“norm”) and suspicious (“susp”). This pilot experiment motivated changes to the corpus that will be discussed in detail in this poster presentation. To increase the accuracy of the machine learning model, we modified how we addressed underperforming labels. One common source of error arose with how non-background labels were converted into patches. Large areas of background within other labels were isolated within a patch resulting in connective tissue misrepresenting a non-background label. In response, the annotation overlay margins were revised to exclude benign connective tissue in non-background labels. Corresponding patient reports and supporting immunohistochemical stains further guided annotation reviews. The microscopic diagnoses given by the primary pathologist in these reports detail the pathological findings within each tissue site, but not within each specific slide. The microscopic diagnoses informed revisions specifically targeting annotated regions classified as cancerous, ensuring that the labels “indc” and “dcis” were used only in situations where a micropathologist diagnosed it as such. Further differentiation of cancerous and precancerous labels, as well as the location of their focus on a slide, could be accomplished with supplemental immunohistochemically (IHC) stained slides. When distinguishing whether a focus is a nonneoplastic feature versus a cancerous growth, pathologists employ antigen targeting stains to the tissue in question to confirm the diagnosis. For example, a nonneoplastic feature of usual ductal hyperplasia will display diffuse staining for cytokeratin 5 (CK5) and no diffuse staining for estrogen receptor (ER), while a cancerous growth of ductal carcinoma in situ will have negative or focally positive staining for CK5 and diffuse staining for ER [9]. Many tissue samples contain cancerous and non-cancerous features with morphological overlaps that cause variability between annotators. The informative fields IHC slides provide could play an integral role in machine model pathology diagnostics. Following the revisions made on all the annotations, a second experiment was run using ResNet18. Compared to the pilot study, an increase of model prediction accuracy was seen for the labels indc, infl, nneo, norm, and null. This increase is correlated with an increase in annotated area and annotation accuracy. Model performance in identifying the suspicious label decreased by 25% due to the decrease of 57% in the total annotated area described by this label. A summary of the model performance is given in Table 4, which shows the new prediction accuracy and the absolute change in error rate compared to Table 3. The breast tissue subset we are developing includes 3,505 annotated breast pathology slides from 296 patients. The average size of a scanned SVS file is 363 MB. The annotations are stored in an XML format. A CSV version of the annotation file is also available which provides a flat, or simple, annotation that is easy for machine learning researchers to access and interface to their systems. Each patient is identified by an anonymized medical reference number. Within each patient’s directory, one or more sessions are identified, also anonymized to the first of the month in which the sample was taken. These sessions are broken into groupings of tissue taken on that date (in this case, breast tissue). A deidentified patient report stored as a flat text file is also available. Within these slides there are a total of 16,971 total annotated regions with an average of 4.84 annotations per slide. Among those annotations, 8,035 are non-cancerous (normal, background, null, and artifact,) 6,222 are carcinogenic signs (inflammation, nonneoplastic and suspicious,) and 2,714 are cancerous labels (ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive ductal carcinoma in situ.) The individual patients are split up into three sets: train, development, and evaluation. Of the 74 cancerous patients, 20 were allotted for both the development and evaluation sets, while the remain 34 were allotted for train. The remaining 222 patients were split up to preserve the overall distribution of labels within the corpus. This was done in hope of creating control sets for comparable studies. Overall, the development and evaluation sets each have 80 patients, while the training set has 136 patients. In a related component of this project, slides from the Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC) Biosample Repository (https://www.foxchase.org/research/facilities/genetic-research-facilities/biosample-repository -facility) are being digitized in addition to slides provided by Temple University Hospital. This data includes 18 different types of tissue including approximately 38.5% urinary tissue and 16.5% gynecological tissue. These slides and the metadata provided with them are already anonymized and include diagnoses in a spreadsheet with sample and patient ID. We plan to release over 13,000 unannotated slides from the FCCC Corpus simultaneously with v1.0.0 of TUDP. Details of this release will also be discussed in this poster. Few digitally annotated databases of pathology samples like TUDP exist due to the extensive data collection and processing required. The breast corpus subset should be released by November 2021. By December 2021 we should also release the unannotated FCCC data. We are currently annotating urinary tract data as well. We expect to release about 5,600 processed TUH slides in this subset. We have an additional 53,000 unprocessed TUH slides digitized. Corpora of this size will stimulate the development of a new generation of deep learning technology. In clinical settings where resources are limited, an assistive diagnoses model could support pathologists’ workload and even help prioritize suspected cancerous cases. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This material is supported by the National Science Foundation under grants nos. CNS-1726188 and 1925494. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. REFERENCES [1] N. Shawki et al., “The Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus,” 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 City, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 67 104. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030368432. [2] J. Picone, T. Farkas, I. Obeid, and Y. Persidsky, “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning.” Major Research Instrumentation (MRI), Division of Computer and Network Systems, Award No. 1726188, January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2021. https://www. isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_dpath/. [3] A. Gulati et al., “Conformer: Convolution-augmented Transformer for Speech Recognition,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (INTERSPEECH), 2020, pp. 5036-5040. https://doi.org/10.21437/interspeech.2020-3015. [4] C.-J. Wu et al., “Machine Learning at Facebook: Understanding Inference at the Edge,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA), 2019, pp. 331–344. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8675201. [5] I. Caswell and B. Liang, “Recent Advances in Google Translate,” Google AI Blog: The latest from Google Research, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://ai.googleblog.com/2020/06/recent-advances-in-google-translate.html. [Accessed: 01-Aug-2021]. [6] V. Khalkhali, N. Shawki, V. Shah, M. Golmohammadi, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Low Latency Real-Time Seizure Detection Using Transfer Deep Learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2021, pp. 1 7. https://www.isip. piconepress.com/publications/conference_proceedings/2021/ieee_spmb/eeg_transfer_learning/. [7] J. Picone, T. Farkas, I. Obeid, and Y. Persidsky, “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning,” Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 2020. https://www.isip.piconepress.com/publications/reports/2020/nsf/mri_dpath/. [8] I. Hunt, S. Husain, J. Simons, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Recent Advances in the Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2019, pp. 1–4. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9037859. [9] A. P. Martinez, C. Cohen, K. Z. Hanley, and X. (Bill) Li, “Estrogen Receptor and Cytokeratin 5 Are Reliable Markers to Separate Usual Ductal Hyperplasia From Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Low-Grade Ductal Carcinoma In Situ,” Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med., vol. 140, no. 7, pp. 686–689, Apr. 2016. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2015-0238-OA.« less