mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

When cheap gradients fail: the measurement cost of attacking quantum classifiers

arXiv 2607.11095 ↗First posted 13 Jul 2026quant-ph cs.CR cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Adversarial perturbations threaten machine learning classifiers, including variational quantum classifiers. We show that finite quantum measurement statistics (shot noise) act as a built-in defense against gradient-based test-time attacks whose cost scales unfavorably for the attacker. Because every gradient component must be inferred from repeated circuit executions under any unbiased gradient-estimation rule, white-box extraction consumes a dimension-dependent measurement budget that measurement grouping cannot remove in expressive circuits. Under stated assumptions, single-step attacks need at least quadratically many shots in the input dimension d, growing as d5/2 under norm-concentration scaling, with a sufficient-budget analysis for iterative attacks via stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics. Simulations up to 784 input dimensions validate the law: the realized total budget is the d5/2 geometric floor for plateau-mitigated models and grows as d3.00 for the tested deep circuits, whose gradient norms decay with dimension absent barren-plateau mitigation; folding the measured gradient norm back in recovers the parameter-free d3/2 shot-noise geometry. Against a matched classical baseline whose attack overhead is dimension-independent (the cheap-gradient principle of automatic differentiation), the quantum gradient cost ratio grows empirically as d3.00, so the attacker's relative cost diverges as the model scales. Experiments on a 156-qubit IBM processor (ibmboston, 4-qubit circuits, d=12) reproduce the effect: at matched budgets the device attack tracks the ideal within a few percent, with the high-shot gradient faithful to the exact one. The defense operates precisely when the forward map is classically hard to simulate: only then is a white-box attacker denied the simulate-and-backpropagate shortcut and must pay the measurement cost we quantify.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 66 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Jul 2026.

Builds on

15 of 66 references.

References · 15

  1. 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,364
  2. 2017Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attackscited by 6,415
  3. 2016Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Neural Networkscited by 2,998
  4. 2017Visualizing the Loss Landscape of Neural Netscited by 1,130
  5. 2015Automatic differentiation in machine learning: a surveycited by 855
  6. 2017Provable defenses against adversarial examples via the convex outer adversarial polytopecited by 567
  7. 2014Identifying and attacking the saddle point problem in high-dimensional non-convex optimizationcited by 289
  8. 2017Global Convergence of Langevin Dynamics Based Algorithms for Nonconvex Optimizationcited by 97
  9. 2018The Curse of Concentration in Robust Learning: Evasion and Poisoning Attacks from Concentration of Measurecited by 46
  10. 2024Trade-off between Gradient Measurement Efficiency and Expressivity in Deep Quantum Neural Networkscited by 8
  11. 2021Hybrid Classical-Quantum Deep Learning Models for Autonomous Vehicle Traffic Image Classification Under Adversarial Attackcited by 6
  12. 2020Information-Theoretic Lower Bounds for Zero-Order Stochastic Gradient Estimationcited by 4
3 more
  1. 2022An Empirical Review of Optimization Techniques for Quantum Variational Circuitscited by 3
  2. 2023Quantum Shadow Gradient Descent for Variational Quantum Algorithmscited by 2
  3. 2025Experimental robustness benchmarking of quantum neural networks on a superconducting quantum processorcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.