Comparing Classical and Quantum Machine Learning for Regression in High Energy Physics Collision Data

Event triggering sits at the heart of high-energy physics, where the rare events of interest must be retained while an overwhelming background is discarded under tight latency and bandwidth budgets. This work compares four classical machine learning models, namely a support vector machine, an artificial neural network, a convolutional network and a long short-term memory network, with four hybrid quantum counterparts, on a trigger-like binary classification task built from CMS open data. The label is defined by an invariant-mass window, and the inputs combine reconstructed kinematics with physics-motivated derived variables: the pseudorapidity difference, the wrapped azimuthal difference, the angular separation and the total transverse momentum. The quantum models run under a fixed resource budget of eight qubits, a principal-component compression to sixteen features and state-vector simulation. Every model shares the same stratified split, the same preprocessing and a common decision threshold, and performance is reported through accuracy, ROC-AUC, F1-score, precision and recall. The strongest classical model is the artificial neural network, at 93.53 percent accuracy and 0.9819 ROC-AUC, while the strongest quantum model is the quantum convolutional network, at 90.89 percent accuracy and 0.9731 ROC-AUC, with the quantum neural network close behind. The quantum-kernel and recurrent quantum approaches trail both, which places the trainable hybrid embeddings ahead within this budget. The study is meant as a controlled reference point rather than a claim of quantum advantage.

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.

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.