Do We Really Need Quantum Machine Learning?: A Multidimensional Empirical Study

Sudip Vhaduri; Ryan Gammon; Sayanton Dibbo

cs.CVMay 27, 2026

Do We Really Need Quantum Machine Learning?: A Multidimensional Empirical Study

Authors: Sudip Vhaduri, Ryan Gammon, Sayanton Dibbo

Organizations: Department of Computer Science, University of Alabama, AL 35487 · Clemson University

Abstract

The rapid growth of computer vision and increasingly complex image recognition tasks has exposed fundamental computational limitations of classical machine learning models, motivating the exploration of quantum computing as an emerging new paradigm. This paper presents a comprehensive benchmarking study of classical and quantum machine learning models for image recognition on the MNIST handwritten digit dataset, evaluating both traditional models, a Classical Support Vector Machine (CSVM) and a Quantum Support Vector Machine (QSVM), and deep neural network models, a Classical Convolutional Neural Network (CCNN) and a Quantum Convolutional Neural Network (QCNN), across four performance dimensions: classification accuracy, computational runtime, parameter count, and memory requirements. Experiments are conducted as functions of both feature dimensionality and sample size, and across CPU and GPU execution environments, providing a controlled, multidimensional comparison to address gaps in prior work. For the SVM-based models, QSVM consistently outperforms CSVM in accuracy, reaching $\sim$ 0.90 versus $\sim$ 0.85 at 1,000 samples, with a higher computational cost. A feature count of 10 qubits and a sample size in the range of 200 -- 500 emerge as practical operating points that balance accuracy and runtime. For the neural network models, CCNN and QCNN achieve comparable classification accuracy, both exceeding 0.96 at 64 features and 60,000 samples, yet QCNN offers substantially superior parameter and memory efficiency, requiring $\sim$ 94% fewer parameters and $\sim$ 75% less memory than CCNN at higher feature counts, while incurring higher runtime. Across both model families, quantum models consistently outperform classical models by greater margins in accuracy as feature dimensionality or sample size increases.

Explore similar work

Sep 20, 2026quant-ph

Comparative Study of Quantum and Classical Machine Learning Models in Binary Classification

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.

Anand Kumar Mishra, Ramanuj Awasthi

Quantum Machine Learning

Ask PDF

Jul 1, 2026cs.LG

Quantum vs. Classical Machine Learning: A Unified Empirical Comparison

Quantum computing has emerged as a promising computational paradigm for machine learning (ML), with the potential to offer computational advantages over classical approaches. At this stage, the evidence supporting the performance and advantages of quantum machine learning (QML) models relative to classical models is insufficient. To address this gap, this paper presents an empirical study on the performance of QML models and their classical counterparts. We compare seven model pairs spanning supervised learning and reinforcement learning. Our results indicate that the evaluated quantum machine learning models do not yet surpass the classical baselines in overall prediction performance, policy stability, or training time. Nevertheless, QML remains a promising approach for filtering noise and controlling false positives. Our research findings summarize the challenges facing quantum machine learning across hardware environments, training efficiency, and convergence stability, providing a foundation for research into the robustness and parameter optimization of QML. This work is publicly available at https://github.com/Z-537-437/QML.

Chuanming Yu, Jiaming Liu, Zihao Ge +4

Quantum Machine Learning Quantum Computing Machine Learning

Ask PDF

Apr 20, 2026quant-ph

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

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.

Siavash Kakavand, Christoph Strohmeyer, Michael Schlotter

Quantum Kernels Hybrid Quantum Neural Networks Tabular Data

Ask PDF