Quantum Computer Learns To 'See' Trees (sciencemag.org)

sciencehabit writes from a report via Science Magazine: Scientists have trained a quantum computer to recognize trees. That may not seem like a big deal, but the result means that researchers are a step closer to using such computers for complicated machine learning problems like pattern recognition and computer vision. The team fed hundreds of NASA satellite images of California into a D-Wave 2X processor, and asked the computer to consider dozens of features -- hue, saturation, even light reflectance -- to determine whether clumps of pixels were trees as opposed to roads, buildings, or rivers. They then told the computer whether its classifications were right or wrong so that the computer could learn from its mistakes, tweaking the formula it uses to determine whether something is a tree. After it was trained, the D-Wave was 90% accurate in recognizing trees in aerial photographs of Mill Valley, California. The results demonstrate how scientists can program quantum computers to 'look' at and analyze images, and opens up the possibility of using them to solve other complex problems that require heavy data crunching.

Comments

wow

[yodleboy]

this is treemendous!

Re:wow

[srmalloy]

Number Three. The Larch.
The Larch.

Re:wow

[R3d M3rcury]

I agree. But can it recognize a forest through those trees?

I bet it still can't

[rsilvergun]

see the forest. What with all the trees and all...

Annealing again

[TechyImmigrant]

The 2X DWave machine does quantum annealing. This is good in the sense that it doesn't come remotely close to the kind of machine that maintains coherence across hundreds of bits that can mess up public key crypto. It managed 5 qbits for 20us if read the paper right.

The paper proudly points out it managed 9% error compared to 10.5% error rate of a classical computer doing simulated annealing. However this is not better than classical computer running a better distinguisher. Classical computers are not constrained to run only simulated annealing.

We have yet to reach the point where any quantum computer is faster than a classical computer at any task. This is a good thing. No one has really put anything in place to protect the cryptography of commerce from a hypothetical but largely impossible quantum computer running Shor's algorithm or Grover's algorithm. New hope, RWLE, hash based signatures etc are still the domain of IACR papers. You bank will not be using them any time soon. Lattice crypto just keep getting broken.

Re:Annealing again

[phantomfive]

This is good in the sense that it doesn't come remotely close to the kind of machine that maintains coherence across hundreds of bits that can mess up public key crypto.

I don't know, I consider it a bad thing. It would cause problems, but there would be huge benefits too, and the problems could be solved.

Re:Annealing again

[TechyImmigrant]

That article supports my assertion that there aren't many compelling quantum algorithms unless you are trying to break crypto.

Lattice crypto mentioned in the article is not a quantum algorithm. It's a class of classical algorithms, some of which claim to be secure against quantum computers. They are also demonstrably hard to get right so they are secure against normal computers.

The paper it references "Exponential Lower Bounds for Polytopes in Combinatorial Optimization" is about optimization problems, which is exactly one of the boring things that the DWave machine does less efficiently than classical computers and if it were a solved problem it would at best find some slightly more optimal solutions to things like the traveling salesman problem, which might shave a few minutes of your next flight, but not nearly as much as plane companies building better planes would.

I've yet to see a compelling application beyond breaking crypto or showing that quantum computers can work - which is a little circular.

Wikipedia gives a convenient list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - Read 'black box problem' as 'breaking crypto'.

There's nothing particularly compelling. Quantum computers make great science and great science yields benefits. If it does, I'm skeptical that it will be because they could solve a BQP problem efficiently.

My real problem is with the breathless tone of the article that perpetuates misconceptions.

Tree Felling Robots not there yet

[nowsharing]

90% accuracy. Please do not release the tree-felling robots just yet.

A revolutionary development...

[__aaclcg7560]

This will force CS programs to reevaluate how they teach about tree structures. Why traverse a tree when you can look at it?

Re:Finally we will know...

[Mr0bvious]

well, it does ..... and it doesn't

Quantum Weakness

[Bob_Who]

This story would be a whole lot more meaningful if, for example, the resulting 90% performance of these quantum chips is any way could be contrasted with ANY frame of reference to reality. Whats the point of reporting test results as compared to ...what? What the hell does it mean?... that every not quantum computer can't perform at all? If I am supposed to care about these results compared to nothing at all then I'm in grave doubt as to the value of this technology in the hands of those who can't distinguish it from an iPhone app's performance. I'm pretty sure it can recognize a tree too. Quantum weakness in rhetorical value. Wake up the other hemisphere on this half baked argument so that nerd news can matter to the rest of the human race.

I imagine this is the training program

[grungeman]

"How to recognize trees from quite a long way away". A bit dated, but still unmatched: https://youtu.be/Tzmp8T2xX2A?t...

Re:Color me unimpressed

[Wescotte]

Dude, it's a quantum computer. It can identify every shade of green!