Reproducibility archive (code + manuscript) for the paper "Benchmarking Quantum Kernel Support Vector Machines Against Classical Baselines on Tabular Data: A Rigorous Empirical Study with Hardware Validation" (arXiv:2604.18837). The archive contains the full Python benchmark framework, experiment configurations, unit tests, and the compiled manuscript. 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; (ii) learning curve analysis; (iii) hardware validation on IBM ibm_fez (Heron r2); and (iv) seed sensitivity analysis. 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 (RBF). The complete benchmark suite is publicly available to facilitate reproduction and extension.
Reproducibility archive (code + manuscript) for the paper "Benchmarking Quantum Kernel Support Vector Machines Against Classical Baselines on Tabular Data: A Rigorous Empirical Study with Hardware Validation" (arXiv:2604.18837). The archive contains the full Python benchmark framework, experiment configurations, unit tests, and the compiled manuscript. 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; (ii) learning curve analysis; (iii) hardware validation on IBM ibm_fez (Heron r2); and (iv) seed sensitivity analysis. 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 (RBF). The complete benchmark suite is publicly available to facilitate reproduction and extension.
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 machine learning has emerged as a promising paradigm that leverages quantum computational principles to potentially outperform classical approaches on specific learning tasks. This paper presents a comprehensive empirical investigation comparing Quantum Machine Learning (QML), specifically Quantum Support Vector Machines (QSVM) against Classical Machine Learning (CML) baselines including Logistic Regression, K Nearest Neighbors and classical SVMs. We implement quantum kernel methods using variational quantum circuits with angle embedding, IQP and ZZ feature maps on datasets exhibiting varying structural complexity. Our experiments on synthetic quantum generated datasets (Quantum Parity, Quantum Entanglement, Quantum Interference) demonstrate that QSVM achieves superior classification accuracy with improvements ranging from 2.9 % to 60 % over the best classical baselines achieving a 55.6 % overall win rate. Notably, on the Quantum Parity dataset, QSVM consistently outperformed all classical models across multiple configurations. On real-world benchmark datasets (Breast Cancer, Iris, Wine), QSVM Angle achieved 88% accuracy on Breast Cancer compared to 76% for classical SVM Linear a 15.8 % relative improvement while matching the best classical performance on Iris(100%)and Wine(92%). All experiments were conducted using quantum circuit simulation on classical hardware. These results provide empirical evidence that quantum kernel methods offer meaningful advantages over classical approaches on datasets with complex feature interactions. We discuss the theoretical foundations of these improvements including quantum feature space expressivity and kernel alignment.
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.
The support vector machine algorithm with a quantum kernel estimator (QSVM-Kernel), as a leading example of a quantum machine learning technique, has undergone significant advancements. Nevertheless, its integration with classical data presents unique challenges. While quantum computers primarily interact with data in quantum states, embedding classical data into quantum states using feature mapping techniques is essential for leveraging quantum algorithms Despite the recognized importance of feature mapping, its specific impact on data classification outcomes remains largely unexplored. This study addresses this gap by comprehensively assessing the effects of various feature mapping methods on classification results, taking medical data analysis as a case study. In this study, the QSVM-Kernel method was applied to classification problems in two different and publicly available medical datasets, namely, the Wisconsin Breast Cancer (original) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Glioma datasets. In the QSVM-Kernel algorithm, quantum kernel matrices obtained from 9 different quantum feature maps were used. Thus, the effects of these quantum feature maps on the classification results of the QSVM-Kernel algorithm were examined in terms of both classifier performance and total execution time. As a result, in the Wisconsin Breast Cancer (original) and TCGA Glioma datasets, when Rx and Ry rotational gates were used, respectively, as feature maps in the QSVM-Kernel algorithm, the best classification performances were achieved both in terms of classification performance and total execution time. The contributions of this study are that (1) it highlights the significant impact of feature mapping techniques on medical data classification outcomes using the QSVM-Kernel algorithm, and (2) it also guides undertaking research for improved QSVM classification performance.
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.
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.