Quantum-Logic Tsetlin Machines: Interpretable Quantum Machine Learning with Commuting Projector Clauses
Organizations: QuantumAI Lab, Fractal Analytics · QuantumAI Lab, Fractal Analytics, Mumbai, India
Abstract
Tsetlin Machines (TMs) learn interpretable Boolean clauses using finite-state automata. We introduce the Quantum-Logic Tsetlin Machine (QL-TM), which replaces Boolean literals with quantum propositions represented by projectors while retaining classical include/exclude automata. Clauses are restricted to commuting measurement contexts and activate through the Born probability of their joint projector. We prove an exact reduction to ordinary Boolean TM clauses in diagonal computational-basis contexts and connect Pauli-projector clauses to stabilizer and syndrome semantics. Controlled experiments on Bell states, phase-flip syndromes, randomized 16-class stabilizer tasks, mixed literal pools, context-budget ablations, and finite-shot noise show that correct non-diagonal contexts recover physically meaningful clauses, while diagonal or wrong contexts lose the relevant phase/syndrome information. The context-budget results closely follow the predicted separability ladder 2^(b-k) as true stabilizer generators are removed. The contribution is a controlled bridge between Tsetlin clause learning and quantum logic, not a claim of quantum advantage.
Figures & tables
| Symbol/quantity | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Pauli projector | |
| Commuting projector clause | |
| Clause activation | |
| Number of stabilizer generators/classes | |
| True coverage | Fraction of true generators selected |
| Selected lit. | Average literals per learned class clause |
| Quantity | Value |
|---|---|
| Train/test split | Random stratified 70/30 train/test split using the package routine train_test_split ; fixed seed per run |
| Bell/phase-flip context experiment | 80 samples per class, 10 seeds for feature-baseline results |
| Random stabilizer experiment | , generators, 16 classes, 6 random tasks, 3 seeds, 50 samples per class |
| Mixed literal-pool experiment | , , 6 random tasks, 3 seeds, 60 samples per class |
| Context-budget ablation | , , 6 random tasks, 3 seeds, 60 samples per class; all subsets for each true-generator budget |
| Finite-shot/noise grid | Depolarizing ; shots |
| Model | Bell QL | Bell | Phase QL | Phase |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ProjectorClauseMiner | 1.000 0.000 | 0.500 0.055 | 1.000 0.000 | 0.239 0.028 |
| TinyProjectorTsetlin | 1.000 0.000 | 0.500 0.055 | 1.000 0.000 | 0.239 0.028 |
| RidgeOneVsRest | 1.000 0.000 | 0.449 0.032 | 1.000 0.000 | 0.201 0.020 |
| NearestPrototype | 1.000 0.000 | 0.500 0.055 | 1.000 0.000 | 0.239 0.028 |
| Feature set | Accuracy | Lit./clause | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | True QL | 1.000 0.000 | 4.00 |
| 5 | Diagonal | 0.150 0.052 | 2.50 |
| 5 | Wrong QL | 0.062 0.006 | 0.00 |
| 6 | True QL | 1.000 0.000 | 4.00 |
| 6 | Diagonal | 0.130 0.064 | 1.17 |
| 6 | Wrong QL | 0.062 0.006 | 0.00 |
| Feature pool | Accuracy | Selected lit. | Coverage | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | True only | 1.000 0.000 | 4.00 | 1.00 |
| 5 | Mixed pool | 1.000 0.000 | 7.00 | 1.00 |
| 5 | Mixed w/o true | 0.419 0.427 | 3.00 | 0.00 |
| 5 | Diagonal | 0.186 0.155 | 2.00 | 0.00 |
| 5 | Wrong QL | 0.049 0.011 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 6 | True only | 1.000 0.000 | 4.00 | 1.00 |
| Available true generators | Expected | acc. | acc. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0/4 | 0.0625 | 0.049 0.011 | 0.049 0.011 |
| 1/4 | 0.1250 | 0.113 0.013 | 0.113 0.013 |
| 2/4 | 0.2500 | 0.240 0.023 | 0.240 0.023 |
| 3/4 | 0.5000 | 0.495 0.027 | 0.495 0.027 |
| 4/4 | 1.0000 | 1.000 0.000 | 1.000 0.000 |
Quantum Machine Learning
Quantum machine learning uses quantum circuits and quantum data to build learning algorithms and study their computational and statistical limits.
See all 256 papers