Abstract This study presents a comparison between classical machine learning (ML) algorithms and their quantum-enhanced counterparts in classifying scikit’s breast cancer dataset. Specifically, the research focused on evaluating the accuracy and time computational efficiency of quantum-enhanced machine learning (QEML) algorithms against traditional or classical machine learning algorithms. The quantum algorithms employed include the quantum support vector machine (qSVM), variational quantum classifier (VQC) and quantum k-nearest neighbor (qkNN). The qSVM and qkNN algorithms discussed here are really kernel-based hybrid classical-quantum algorithms as opposed to fully quantum algorithms and the VQC is a hybrid classical-quantum algorithm. These algorithms were tested against their classical equivalents: support vector machine (SVM), k-nearest neighbor (kNN), and artificial neural network (ANN). The qSVM algorithm demonstrated an 90% accuracy in distinguishing malignant from benign cancer cases (the classical support vector machine algorithm had a 99% accuracy), while qkNN achieved 90% accuracy (the classical kNN algorithm had an accuracy of 97%), and VQC reported 88.77± 0.26% (averaged over 5 runs) (this was compared with an ANN which had an accuracy of 96%). The accuracies of the classical SVM, kNN, and ANN algorithms were recorded, to provide a basis for comparison. The results indicated that while QEML algorithms perform reasonably well in classification tasks, however they do not consistently outperform classical algorithms. Additionally, the study measured the time efficiency of each algorithm. The ANN required 33.8 seconds, kNN required 0.21 seconds, and SVM required 1.98 seconds to perform the classification tasks. In contrast, the quantum algorithms were significantly slower, with the VQC taking 632.53 seconds, qkNN requiring 495.34 seconds, and qSVM requiring 538.05 seconds (This is not fixed per run but give an impression of the time scales to run the algorithms). We emphasize that this simulation runtime does not reflect actual quantum hardware performance, where gate execution and circuit depth constraints differ significantly. To mitigate this ambiguity, we distinguish between simulation runtime and estimated quantum runtime where relevant. This work potentially highlights the cases where it may not offer any advantage to use quantum machine learning algorithms. The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve and the Area Under the Curve (AUC) analysis are also considered in this work where the values measured for the SVM, kNN and ANN were 99%, 99% and 99% respectively and for the qSVM, qkNN and VQC were 87%, 86% and 86± 0.2% (averaged over 5 runs) respectively. Overall, this research contributes valuable insights into the comparative performance of classical and quantum ML algorithms in a specific application, underscoring the potential and current limitations of quantum approaches in machine learning tasks. Hyperparameter optimization was done for all the algorithms, both quantum and classical, with Optuna. This was primarily because the QEML algorithms had more parameters and required considerable computational resources to optimize. This could have influenced the performance outcomes and is the basis for future work. The development of key comparison criteria is critical in the development of quantum machine learning, and this work offers some building blocks for this.
Abstract This study presents a comparison between classical machine learning (ML) algorithms and their quantum-enhanced counterparts in classifying scikit’s breast cancer dataset. Specifically, the research focused on evaluating the accuracy and time computational efficiency of quantum-enhanced machine learning (QEML) algorithms against traditional or classical machine learning algorithms. The quantum algorithms employed include the quantum support vector machine (qSVM), variational quantum classifier (VQC) and quantum k-nearest neighbor (qkNN). The qSVM and qkNN algorithms discussed here are really kernel-based hybrid classical-quantum algorithms as opposed to fully quantum algorithms and the VQC is a hybrid classical-quantum algorithm. These algorithms were tested against their classical equivalents: support vector machine (SVM), k-nearest neighbor (kNN), and artificial neural network (ANN). The qSVM algorithm demonstrated an 90% accuracy in distinguishing malignant from benign cancer cases (the classical support vector machine algorithm had a 99% accuracy), while qkNN achieved 90% accuracy (the classical kNN algorithm had an accuracy of 97%), and VQC reported 88.77± 0.26% (averaged over 5 runs) (this was compared with an ANN which had an accuracy of 96%). The accuracies of the classical SVM, kNN, and ANN algorithms were recorded, to provide a basis for comparison. The results indicated that while QEML algorithms perform reasonably well in classification tasks, however they do not consistently outperform classical algorithms. Additionally, the study measured the time efficiency of each algorithm. The ANN required 33.8 seconds, kNN required 0.21 seconds, and SVM required 1.98 seconds to perform the classification tasks. In contrast, the quantum algorithms were significantly slower, with the VQC taking 632.53 seconds, qkNN requiring 495.34 seconds, and qSVM requiring 538.05 seconds (This is not fixed per run but give an impression of the time scales to run the algorithms). We emphasize that this simulation runtime does not reflect actual quantum hardware performance, where gate execution and circuit depth constraints differ significantly. To mitigate this ambiguity, we distinguish between simulation runtime and estimated quantum runtime where relevant. This work potentially highlights the cases where it may not offer any advantage to use quantum machine learning algorithms. The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve and the Area Under the Curve (AUC) analysis are also considered in this work where the values measured for the SVM, kNN and ANN were 99%, 99% and 99% respectively and for the qSVM, qkNN and VQC were 87%, 86% and 86± 0.2% (averaged over 5 runs) respectively. Overall, this research contributes valuable insights into the comparative performance of classical and quantum ML algorithms in a specific application, underscoring the potential and current limitations of quantum approaches in machine learning tasks. Hyperparameter optimization was done for all the algorithms, both quantum and classical, with Optuna. This was primarily because the QEML algorithms had more parameters and required considerable computational resources to optimize. This could have influenced the performance outcomes and is the basis for future work. The development of key comparison criteria is critical in the development of quantum machine learning, and this work offers some building blocks for this.
Breast cancer is rated as one of the top leading diagnosed and deadliest cancers affecting women worldwide and causing high mortality rate among cancers. With the data-driven applications, hybrid quantum-classical machine learning models have evolved as significant alternatives for handling complex feature spaces with the growing interest in quantum computing. This paper presents a systematic comparative study of classical and quantum machine learning approaches for breast cancer classification using the Wisconsin Breast Cancer Dataset. In this architecture we have preprocessed classical feature vectors using standard normalized techniques and parallelly quantum states are mapped through data embedding techniques which relies on parameterized rotational gates. In this work we have implemented all quantum models using the Pennylane library, resulting in hybrid quantum–classical optimization on near-term quantum simulators. The comparison results in multiple classical and quantum models. In classical we have Support Vector Machine (SVM), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), which are compared with the quantum-based models such as the Variational Quantum Classifier (VQC), Quantum Support Vector Machine (QSVM) and Quantum Convolutional Neural Network (QCNN). In QSVM, we have performed dimensionality reduction using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) before to quantum embedding, and quantum-generated features are used to train a classical linear SVM. The evaluation metrics results in accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, ROC curves and confusion matrices. The classical models achieves the accuracy in the range of 94%-96%, whereas competitive performance of quantum models demonstrate depending on the embedding strategy and circuit configuration. In the implemented quantum models, the variational quantum classifier achieved the highest classification accuracy of 96.06%, surpassing other evaluated models. These results demonstrate quantum embedding combined with variational quantum circuits can effectively capture discriminative patterns in medical datasets, indicating the implementation of quantum machine learning models for breast cancer diagnosis with the present quantum simulating platforms.
Breast cancer is a major health concern, and early detection can make a great difference in treatment and survival rates for breast cancer patients. Machine learning methods have noticeably improved prediction accuracy on high-dimensional medical datasets and have become widely used tools in medical diagnostics. The transition to a quantum computational framework has opened new directions in machine learning research. By using qubits instead of classical bits, quantum models may provide new ways to represent and process complex medical data. In medical diagnostics, this has led to a growing interest in whether quantum approaches can improve classification performance more effectively than classical methods. The purpose of this paper is to compare classical and quantum machine learning models on the task of breast cancer classification and to determine whether quantum models can achieve higher accuracy and faster prediction on a selected dataset. Alongside the main simulator-based experiment, a smaller experiment was performed on a real IBM quantum computer to demonstrate the practical execution of the same task under current hardware constraints. In the practical part of the study, the Wisconsin Diagnostic Breast Cancer (WDBC) dataset was used. This dataset consists of 569 samples with 30 numerical features extracted from digitized fine needle aspirate images and provides a reliable basis for evaluating model performance. A comparative analysis was conducted between classical and quantum machine learning models, including a support vector machine (SVM), an artificial neural network (ANN), a quantum support vector machine (QSVM), and a hybrid quantum-classical neural network (QNN). In the simulator-based experiment, both SVM and ANN achieved an accuracy of 0.956 with an F1-score of 0.965 on the test set, while QSVM reached an accuracy of 0.807 with an F1-score of 0.866 and the Hybrid QNN achieved 0.623 accuracy with an F1-score of 0.677. These quantum and hybrid models also required substantially longer training times than the classical baselines. A small hardware experiment on an IBM quantum device further illustrates both the practical feasibility and the current limitations of executing this classification task on noisy intermediate-scale quantum hardware.
A potential path forward is Quantum Machine Learning (QML), which aims to leverage quantum computing in conjunction with classical machine learning to enhance computing efficiency and the expressiveness of models. In this paper, two different quantum classifiers - Variational Quantum Classifier (VQC) and Quantum Kernel Support Vector Machine (QSVM) - are compared with three classical classifiers as baseline classifiers - Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine (SVM), and a Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) - on the Breast Cancer Wisconsin dataset. The quantum circuits were created in the PennyLane framework and simulated on a classical backend. However, in terms of accuracy, classical Logistic Regression performed better with an accuracy of 97.8%, classical SVM and QSVM with an accuracy of 95.6% each, although the Quantum VQC achieved a lower accuracy of 88.9% and had a recall of 100% for the benign class, though it correctly identified only 12 of the 17 malignant cases (a malignant-class recall of approximately 70.6%). The drawback of quantum models is the higher training time; however, since the quantum circuit needs to be classically simulated, the quantum SVM took 23.29 seconds compared to less than 0.01 seconds for the classical linear models. These results indicate that for small structured datasets, classifiers based on quantum computing have not yet surpassed well-tuned classical counterparts. In some respects (e.g., benign-class recall), they perform competitively, though not on malignant-class recall, where the VQC in particular performed worse than the classical baselines, which is worth further investigation on real quantum computers.
Introduction: In recent years, high-dimensional clinical and genomic data have gained significant importance for prognosis and personalized medicine in breast cancer. But the use of quantum machine learning (QML) on such data is limited by the availability of few qubits, the computation time of quantum simulation, and dimensionality reduction. This work systematically compares several QML architectures for breast cancer classification in the presence of realistic and simulator constraints. Methods: The experiments were performed on a dataset of METABRIC breast cancer patients (2,509 patients). After handling missing values and one-hot encoding, there were 63 features in the processed data set. The feature space was reduced by Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to 12, 4 and 2 components for the implementations of quantum computers, respectively, with 56.10 ± 0.14%, 26.78 ± 0.57% and 16.23 ± 0.33% of the variance retained. Three QML models were tested: Quantum Neural Networks (QNN), Quantum K-Nearest Neighbors (QKNN), and Quantum Support Vector Machines (QSVM), with the models being simulated. Seven classical classification models were tested: Logistic Regression, SVM with RBF kernel, K-Nearest Neighbors, Random Forest, XGBoost, LightGBM and Multilayer Perceptron, both with PCA-matched and full 63-feature representation. All primary results are reported with 5-fold cross validation. Results: Among the evaluated QML architectures, QKNN using 12 principal components achieved the strongest performance, attaining an accuracy of **75.11% ± 3.76%**, an F1-score of **0.7088 ± 0.0433**, and a ROC-AUC of **0.8148 ± 0.0394**. Even though all of the QML models performed significantly poorly in comparison to classical models trained on the entire 63-feature data set, the latter models were able to achieve about **94% accuracy** with XGBoost, Random Forest, and Logistic Regression. The comparison also showed the effect of information loss due to PCA is significant in predictive performance in both classical and quantum models. Discussion: The results show that for high dimensional breast cancer data, currently available simulator-based QML models can learn meaningful patterns with limited quantum resources, but are not as effective as powerful classical machine learning models when complete feature representations are available. The study does not report any sort of quantum advantage or clinical use, but rather a benchmark of current QML architectures that has been rigorously calculated and repeated, with a focus on the impact of dimensionality reduction, validation approaches, and simulator limitations, as well as outlining challenges that need to be overcome prior to practical implementation on real quantum hardware.
Early and accurate diagnosis of breast cancer plays a critical role in improving patient survival rates and reducing treatment costs. Classical machine learning algorithms such as Logistic Regression and Support Vector Machines (SVM) have demonstrated strong performance in medical diagnosis tasks; however, their scalability and representational limits motivate the exploration of emerging paradigms. Quantum Machine Learning (QML), particularly Variational Quantum Classifiers (VQC), has recently gained attention due to its potential to model complex decision boundaries using quantum circuits. This paper presents a comparative analysis between a Variational Quantum Classifier and classical machine learning models for binary breast cancer classification. The study employs dimensionality-reduced clinical data and evaluates model performance using accuracy, confusion matrices, decision boundary visualization, Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves. Experimental results indicate that the VQC achieves competitive performance with classical approaches, demonstrating its feasibility for small-scale medical datasets and highlighting the promise of quantum-enhanced learning in healthcare applications.
Current research paper presents a comparative analysis of classical and quantum machine learning algorithms for breast cancer diagnosis. The study focuses on two classical machine learning algorithms, XGBoost and SVM, along with two quantum models, Variational Quantum Classifier (VQC) and Quantum Support Vector Classifier (QSVC). The performance of the models is evaluated based on F1 score and recall. Results indicated that classic SVM and QSVC showed competitive results considering the other two algorithms regarding F1 score. This work contributes to the growing research on the application of classical and quantum ML algorithms in breast cancer classification.