mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Bypassing orthogonalization in the quantum DPP sampler

arXiv 2503.05906 ↗First posted 7 Mar 2025quant-ph cs.LG stat.COcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Given an n× r matrix X of rank r, consider the problem of sampling r integers mathttCsubset 1, dots, n with probability proportional to the squared determinant of the rows of X indexed by mathttC. The distribution of mathttC is called a projection determinantal point process (DPP). The vanilla classical algorithm to sample a DPP works in two steps, an orthogonalization in O(nr2) and a sampling step of the same cost. The bottleneck of recent quantum approaches to DPP sampling remains that preliminary orthogonalization step. For instance, (Kerenidis and Prakash, 2022) proposed an algorithm with the same O(nr2) orthogonalization, followed by a O(nr) classical step to find the gates in a quantum circuit. The classical O(nr2) orthogonalization thus still dominates the cost. Our first contribution is to reduce preprocessing to normalizing the columns of X, obtaining mathsfX in O(nr) classical operations. We show that a simple circuit inspired by the formalism of Kerenidis et al., 2022 samples a DPP of a type we had never encountered in applications, which is different from our target DPP. Plugging this circuit into a rejection sampling routine, we recover our target DPP after an expected 1/det mathsfX^topmathsfX = 1/a preparations of the quantum circuit. Using amplitude amplification, our second contribution is to boost the acceptance probability from a to 1-a at the price of a circuit depth of O(rlog n/√a) and O(log n) extra qubits. Prepending a fast, sketching-based classical approximation of a, we obtain a pipeline to sample a projection DPP on a quantum computer, where the former O(nr2) preprocessing bottleneck has been replaced by the O(nr) cost of normalizing the columns and the cost of our approximation of a.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Mar 2025.

Builds on

18 of 48 references.

References · 18

  1. 2020Determinantal Point Processes in Randomized Numerical Linear Algebracited by 41
  2. 2015Large-scale Log-determinant Computation through Stochastic Chebyshev Expansionscited by 17
  3. 2019Learning Nonsymmetric Determinantal Point Processescited by 15
  4. 2021Determinantal point processes based on orthogonal polynomials for sampling minibatches in SGDcited by 11
  5. 2020Scalable Learning and MAP Inference for Nonsymmetric Determinantal Point Processescited by 10
  6. 2015A Randomized Algorithm for Approximating the Log Determinant of a Symmetric Positive Definite Matrixcited by 9
  7. 2016Uniform Sampling through the Lov'asz Local Lemmacited by 9
  8. 2018A determinantal point process for column subset selectioncited by 9
  9. 2019Quantum Speedup for Graph Sparsification, Cut Approximation and Laplacian Solvingcited by 8
  10. 2022Optimal Sublinear Sampling of Spanning Trees and Determinantal Point Processes via Average-Case Entropic Independencecited by 8
  11. 2022A Faster Sampler for Discrete Determinantal Point Processescited by 6
  12. 2018A Matrix Chernoff Bound for Strongly Rayleigh Distributions and Spectral Sparsifiers from a few Random Spanning Treescited by 5
6 more
  1. 2017Graph sampling with determinantal processescited by 4
  2. 2021Fundamentals of Partial Rejection Samplingcited by 3
  3. 2022From point processes to quantum optics and backcited by 2
  4. 2022Smoothing complex-valued signals on Graphs with Monte-Carlocited by 1
  5. 2023On sampling determinantal and Pfaffian point processes on a quantum computercited by 1
  6. 2024Cycling in the forest with Wilson's algorithmcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.