Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

IEEE Dallas Circuits and Systems Conference (DCAS)

Quantum Kernels for Parity-Structured Classification: A Hybrid Pipeline

Tushar Pandey

Published Apr 10, 2026• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

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$83.4 \% \pm 1.7 \%$and the quantum kernel$81.2 \% \pm 1.9 \%$, showing encoding drives performance there. At high complexity ($n=11$features,$\text{1 1}$qubits,$r=3 \text{~ Z Z}$repetitions), all classical methods collapse to near-random ($\sim 50 \%$), binary RBF reaches only$54.3 \% \pm 1.1 \%$, and the quantum$\text{Z Z}$kernel achieves$\text{6 6. 3} \% \pm \text{3. 2} \%$(mean ± std,$\text{1 0}$seeds)—a + 12.0 percentage-point margin over the binary ablation and$\sim 7 \times$higher kernel-target alignment$(0.094 \pm 0.020$vs.$0.013 \pm 0.001)$. These results identify parity complexity as a concrete axis along which genuine quantum kernel advantage, not attributable to encoding alone, emerges.

DOI
10.1109/dcas69364.2026.11544464

Related papers

Quantum Kernels for Parity-Structured Classification: A Hybrid Pipeline

Tushar Pandey

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.

quant-pharXiv:2605.05625•May 8, 2026•0 citations

Do Quantum Kernels Improve Medical Image Classification? A Leakage-Controlled Benchmark Against Classical RBF-SVM

Dr. M. Usman Hashmi, M. Adnan Hashmi, Muazzam Ali +1 more

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.

Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine•Sep 21, 2026•0 citations

Benchmarking Quantum Kernel Support Vector Machines Against Classical Baselines on Tabular Data: A Rigorous Empirical Study with Hardware Validation

Siavash Kakavand, Christoph Strohmeyer, Michael Schlotter

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 $r \geq 0.976$ 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 ($\varepsilon^2 = 0.73$), 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.

quant-pharXiv:2604.18837•Apr 22, 2026•0 citations

Empirical Evaluation of Quantum Kernel Methods for Classification: A Comparative Study with Classical Kernels

Ronak Bhalgami

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 $5\times10^{7}$ circuits at n = 10,000. Protocol variance is thus sufficient to explain the field's contradictory conclusions.

quant-pharXiv:2610.42029•Nov 2, 2026

Quantum Parity Representations: Learnable Basis Discovery, Encoders, and Shadow Deployment

Sang Hyub Kim, Oliver Knitter, Jonathan Mei +4 more

We study parity features as representations that can be evaluated entirely classically once the binary or quantized input representation and parity words are fixed, particularly when labels depend on higher-order feature interactions or when discrete inference interfaces support perturbation robustness. A parity feature is a signed product over selected bits of a binary input: once the participating bits are known, evaluation requires no quantum resources. Reaching a useful parity representation requires solving two challenges. When the input is parity-ready (a meaningful binary string), the challenge is basis discovery: selecting useful parity words from a combinatorial search space. Otherwise, the challenge is encoding: constructing a binary vector on which parity computation is meaningful. We use hybrid quantum-classical training pipelines to address these: learnable Pauli word selection for basis discovery, learned projection encodings for continuous embeddings, and sPQC-Parity for discrete inputs. On three native-binary parity tasks with 5-10 qubits, the learned parity basis improves mean accuracy by 23.9% to 41.7% over logistic-regression and support-vector baselines. A model comparison shows that the improvement comes primarily from discovering the right parity basis, rather than from quantum moment computation at inference. On five continuous text benchmarks, learned projection recovers much of the loss introduced by dimensionality reduction and fixed binarization, exceeding the full continuous baseline on CR, SST-2, and SST-5. On three encoding-limited discrete datasets, when compared with PCA-bin as the baseline, sPQC-Parity reaches 94.6% improvement on mushroom, 3.0% on splice, and matches PCA-bin on promoter. We also analyze inference robustness under binary or quantized inference, where rounding gives exact invariance below half the quantization step.

quant-pharXiv:2605.11213•May 13, 2026•0 citations

Beyond accuracy: A Kernel-level Comparative Analysis of Quantum and Classical Support Vector Machines

Shahryar Rza

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.

•Mar 27, 2026•1 citation
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}\{0, \pi\}{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}\{0, \pi\}{0,π}features—separates encoding from circuit effects: at low complexity (n=5n=5n=5features), binary RBF achieves83.4%±1.7%83.4 \% \pm 1.7 \%83.4%±1.7%and the quantum kernel81.2%±1.9%81.2 \% \pm 1.9 \%81.2%±1.9%, showing encoding drives performance there. At high complexity (n=11n=11n=11features,1 1\text{1 1}1 1qubits,r=3  Z Zr=3 \text{~ Z Z}r=3  Z Zrepetitions), all classical methods collapse to near-random (∼50%\sim 50 \%∼50%), binary RBF reaches only54.3%±1.1%54.3 \% \pm 1.1 \%54.3%±1.1%, and the quantumZ Z\text{Z Z}Z Zkernel achieves6 6. 3%±3. 2%\text{6 6. 3} \% \pm \text{3. 2} \%6 6. 3%±3. 2%(mean ± std,1 0\text{1 0}1 0seeds)—a + 12.0 percentage-point margin over the binary ablation and∼7×\sim 7 \times∼7×higher kernel-target alignment(0.094±0.020(0.094 \pm 0.020(0.094±0.020vs.0.013±0.001)0.013 \pm 0.001)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.
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=0.05α= 0.05α=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≥0.976r \geq 0.976r≥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\varepsilon^2 = 0.73ε2=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 γγγ, 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 5×1075\times10^{7}5×107 circuits at n = 10,000. Protocol variance is thus sufficient to explain the field's contradictory conclusions.
We study parity features as representations that can be evaluated entirely classically once the binary or quantized input representation and parity words are fixed, particularly when labels depend on higher-order feature interactions or when discrete inference interfaces support perturbation robustness. A parity feature is a signed product over selected bits of a binary input: once the participating bits are known, evaluation requires no quantum resources. Reaching a useful parity representation requires solving two challenges. When the input is parity-ready (a meaningful binary string), the challenge is basis discovery: selecting useful parity words from a combinatorial search space. Otherwise, the challenge is encoding: constructing a binary vector on which parity computation is meaningful. We use hybrid quantum-classical training pipelines to address these: learnable Pauli word selection for basis discovery, learned projection encodings for continuous embeddings, and sPQC-Parity for discrete inputs. On three native-binary parity tasks with 5-10 qubits, the learned parity basis improves mean accuracy by 23.9% to 41.7% over logistic-regression and support-vector baselines. A model comparison shows that the improvement comes primarily from discovering the right parity basis, rather than from quantum moment computation at inference. On five continuous text benchmarks, learned projection recovers much of the loss introduced by dimensionality reduction and fixed binarization, exceeding the full continuous baseline on CR, SST-2, and SST-5. On three encoding-limited discrete datasets, when compared with PCA-bin as the baseline, sPQC-Parity reaches 94.6% improvement on mushroom, 3.0% on splice, and matches PCA-bin on promoter. We also analyze inference robustness under binary or quantized inference, where rounding gives exact invariance below half the quantization step.
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.