Parity (XOR) classification requires detecting discrete, high-order feature interactions that smooth classical kernels cannot efficiently capture. We study how quantum kernel advantage depends on parity complexity, the number of features entering the XOR rule, and find a clear threshold behavior. We pair a ZZ quantum feature map with binary {0, pi} encoding (features median thresholded before circuit input) to expose parity structure. A binary encoding ablation, RBF SVM trained on the identical {0, pi} features, separates encoding from circuit effects: at low complexity (n = 5 features), binary RBF achieves 83.4% +/- 1.7% and the quantum kernel 81.2% +/- 1.9%, showing encoding drives performance there. At high complexity (n = 11 features, 11 qubits, r = 3 ZZ repetitions), all classical methods collapse to near-random (approx. 50%), binary RBF reaches only 54.3% +/- 1.1%, and the quantum ZZ kernel achieves 66.3% +/- 3.2% (mean +/- std, 10 seeds), a +12.0 percentage-point margin over the binary ablation and approx. 7x higher kernel-target alignment (0.094 +/- 0.020 vs. 0.013 +/- 0.001). These results identify parity complexity as a concrete axis along which genuine quantum kernel advantage, not attributable to encoding alone, emerges.
Parity (XOR) classification requires detecting discrete, high-order feature interactions that smooth classical kernels cannot efficiently capture. We study how quantum kernel advantage depends on parity complexity, the number of features entering the XOR rule, and find a clear threshold behavior. We pair a ZZ quantum feature map with binary {0, pi} encoding (features median thresholded before circuit input) to expose parity structure. A binary encoding ablation, RBF SVM trained on the identical {0, pi} features, separates encoding from circuit effects: at low complexity (n = 5 features), binary RBF achieves 83.4% +/- 1.7% and the quantum kernel 81.2% +/- 1.9%, showing encoding drives performance there. At high complexity (n = 11 features, 11 qubits, r = 3 ZZ repetitions), all classical methods collapse to near-random (approx. 50%), binary RBF reaches only 54.3% +/- 1.1%, and the quantum ZZ kernel achieves 66.3% +/- 3.2% (mean +/- std, 10 seeds), a +12.0 percentage-point margin over the binary ablation and approx. 7x higher kernel-target alignment (0.094 +/- 0.020 vs. 0.013 +/- 0.001). These results identify parity complexity as a concrete axis along which genuine quantum kernel advantage, not attributable to encoding alone, emerges.
Parity (XOR) classification requires detecting discrete, high-order feature interactions that smooth classical kernels cannot efficiently capture. We study how quantum kernel advantage depends on parity complexity—the number of features entering the XOR rule—and find a clear threshold behavior. We pair a ZZ quantum feature map with binary{0,π}encoding (features median-thresholded before circuit input) to expose parity structure. A binary encoding ablation—RBF SVM trained on the identical{0,π}features—separates encoding from circuit effects: at low complexity (n=5features), binary RBF achieves83.4%±1.7%and the quantum kernel81.2%±1.9%, showing encoding drives performance there. At high complexity (n=11features,1 1qubits,r=3 Z Zrepetitions), all classical methods collapse to near-random (∼50%), binary RBF reaches only54.3%±1.1%, and the quantumZ Zkernel achieves6 6. 3%±3. 2%(mean ± std,1 0seeds)—a + 12.0 percentage-point margin over the binary ablation and∼7×higher kernel-target alignment(0.094±0.020vs.0.013±0.001). These results identify parity complexity as a concrete axis along which genuine quantum kernel advantage, not attributable to encoding alone, emerges.
Quantum kernel methods are often proposed as a route to improved medical image classification because quantum feature maps can embed data into high-dimensional Hilbert spaces. However, their practical value remains unclear when compared with strong classical kernels under leakage-controlled conditions. This study benchmarks two simulated quantum kernel support vector machines, QSVM-ZZ and QSVM-Pauli, against logistic regression, linear SVM, fixed-default RBF-SVM, and a compact multi-layer perceptron on BrainTumorMRI and BreastMNIST. All models used identical frozen ResNet18 features, train-only standardisation, PCA compression to four and eight dimensions, three random seeds, and matched classifier-training budgets where applicable. Across 24 seed-level matched comparisons, the best quantum kernel model never outperformed the best classical model. The mean quantum-minus-classical macro-F1 gap was - 0.2230, with all 24 gaps negative. Fixed pairwise comparisons confirmed that RBF-SVM exceeded both quantum kernels individually. QSVMs also required approximately 50 × to more than 220 × higher runtime. These findings show that, for compressed ResNet18 medical image features under noiseless simulation, the tested QSVM-ZZ and QSVM-Pauli kernels did not provide a practical advantage over fixed-default RBF-SVM.
Quantum kernel methods have been proposed as a promising approach for leveraging near-term quantum computers for supervised learning, yet rigorous benchmarks against strong classical baselines remain scarce. We present a comprehensive empirical study of quantum kernel support vector machines (QSVMs) across nine binary classification datasets, four quantum feature maps, three classical kernels, and multiple noise models, totalling 970 experiments with strict nested cross-validation.
Our analysis spans four phases: (i) statistical significance testing, revealing that none of 29 pairwise quantum-classical comparisons reach significance at α=0.05; (ii) learning curve analysis over six training fractions, showing steeper quantum slopes on six of eight datasets that nonetheless fail to close the gap to the best classical baseline; (iii) hardware validation on IBM ibm_fez (Heron r2), demonstrating kernel fidelity r≥0.976 across six experiments; and (iv) seed sensitivity analysis confirming reproducibility (mean CV 1.4%).
A Kruskal-Wallis factorial analysis reveals that dataset choice dominates performance variance (ε2=0.73), while kernel type accounts for only 9%. Spectral analysis offers a mechanistic explanation: current quantum feature maps produce eigenspectra that are either too flat or too concentrated, missing the intermediate profile of the best classical kernel, the radial basis function (RBF). Quantum kernel training (QKT) via kernel-target alignment yields the single competitive result -- balanced accuracy 0.968 on breast cancer -- but with ~2,000x computational overhead.
Our findings provide actionable guidelines for quantum kernel research. The complete benchmark suite is publicly available to facilitate reproduction and extension.
Quantum kernel methods are the most concrete near-term proposal for quantum machine learning on classical data, yet published benchmarks disagree on whether they outperform tuned classical kernels, and the disagreement cannot be resolved from the literature because the comparisons are not protocol-controlled. We argue that the obstacle is one of measurement, not theory: the usual setup fixes the quantum feature map's data scaling while grid-searching the classical kernel's hyperparameters, recomputes nothing per fold, and reports cost in simulator time. We therefore treat the comparison itself as the object of study and impose three controls. The bandwidth is tuned on the same grid budget as the classical γ, the kernel is recomputed inside every fold from fold-fitted preprocessing, and cost is counted in hardware circuit evaluations. On top of these we run a factorial design of 324 cells in which dimensionality, training size, class separability and data structure are explicit covariates, together with four standard datasets, a shots-versus-gate-noise ablation, and a cost sweep. The dominant effect we measure is not quantum: tuning the feature map's bandwidth is worth 0.120 accuracy on synthetic data and 0.339 on real data, exceeding every quantum-classical difference we observe. Tuned quantum kernels are then statistically indistinguishable from a tuned RBF on all four real datasets. The advantage on synthetic data is confined almost entirely to data generated by the feature map itself, and it shrinks with dimensionality (-0.0045 per qubit) while growing with sample size. Finite sampling costs an order of magnitude more accuracy than gate and readout noise, and a fidelity kernel needs 5×107 circuits at n = 10,000. Protocol variance is thus sufficient to explain the field's contradictory conclusions.
This thesis presents a systematic empirical evaluation of quantum machine learning performance under noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) era constraints. Through 670 controlled experiments, it evaluated quantum kernel support vector machines and variational quantum classifiers against classical baselines on MNIST binary and multiclass classification tasks with systematic variation of problem difficulty, feature dimensionality (4, 8 qubits), and training set size (n ∈{100, 250, 400, 500, 2000, 4000}). Statistical rigor was ensured through five random seeds per condition and comprehensive significance testing. During the testing with binary datasets, classical methods (SVM, logistic regression, k-NN, neural networks) achieved 85.9% to 99.6% accuracy with training times under one second across all sample sizes. Quantum kernel methods utilizing ZZ feature maps yielded 70.5% to 96.0% accuracy, requiring 129 to 2,140 seconds training with quadratic sample size scaling. Larger scale quantum experiments (n = 4000 for both architectures, 8-qubit encoding with n = 2000 for quantum kernels) proved computationally impossible on available hardware leading to out of memory errors, highlighting practical NISQ-era scalability constraints. Variational quantum classifiers exhibited persistent performance stagnation, failing to exceed 66.5% accuracy despite increases in training data and feature dimensionality. Performance gaps ranged from 3.3 to 35.2 percentage points. All quantum classical differences achieved statistical significance (p< 0.05, with 13 of 14 comparisons meeting p< 0.01) and exhibited large to very large efect sizes (d> 1.0, with 13 of 14 comparisons exceeding d> 2.0). To further evaluate performance and scalability, a 4 class classification experiment was conducted following an identical experimental protocol, with training set sizes of n ∈{100, 250, 400}. Across 180 runs, classical baselines achieved mean accuracies between 87.2% and 95% across both 4 and 8 dimensional data. Quantum Kernel SVM struggled during runs with 4 dimensions, accuracy varying between 64.6% and 74%. Quantum Kernel SVM accuracy declined 16%-25% when the dimension and qubit count were increased to 8, showing findings of exponential kernel concentration. The Variational Quantum Classifier also performed poorly, with accuracy ranging from 43.4% to 44.6% across all runs, providing further evidence that it failed to leverage additional features or training data. Experiments employed noiseless statevector simulation, establishing that quantum underperformance stems from fundamental algorithmic limitations independent of hardware noise. A further extension to 8 class classification (digits 0–7) confirmed and amplified these findings: classical methods maintained 65–83% accuracy while Quantum Kernel SVM degraded to 34–47% and VQC collapsed to 21–23%, approaching the 12.5% random baseline. Supplementary appendix experiments further examined amplitude encoding on raw 784 dimensional pixel features and an alternative angle encoding scheme on the 8-class task; the latter demonstrated that replacing the ZZ Feature Map with simple per qubit rotations substantially recovered quantum kernel performance, suggesting feature map design as a more consequential variable than circuit depth or qubit count in near-term quantum classification.
Abstract Quantum kernel approaches have been touted as a possible way to gain representational advantages over classical machine learning techniques however most comparative work only looks at classification accuracy leaving the geometric structure of the kernels unexplored. We carry out a comprehensive kernel-level comparison between classical support vector machines (SVMs) with radial basis function (RBF) kernels and quantum support vector classifiers that use ZZFeatureMap and PauliFeatureMap fidelity kernels, tested on two synthetic and two real-world two-dimensional datasets. After applying centred kernel alignment(CKA), the Hilbert-Schmidt Independence Criterion (HSIC), eigenvalue spectrum analysis, spectral entropy, and effective rank. Firstly, shallow quantum kernels form a moderately aligned band with RBF across all datasets and conditions that is quite stable (CKA : 0.41 → 0.57), whereas going deeper in the circuit to two repetitions largely mismatches both alignment and accuracy with no representational gain (e.g. Iris cross-validation accuracy: 0.920 → 0.670, p = 0.0004). Secondly, depolarising noise surprisingly increases the quantum-classical kernel alignment, which means that near-term hardware kernels are structurally closer to RBF than noiseless simulations suggest. Thirdly, the scenarios that lead to maximum apparent quantum-classical divergence, small sample sizes and low noise, are precisely those most used to benchmark quantum kernel advantage. Kernel-level structural analysis is essential for meaningful evaluation of quantum machine learning methods.