Modeling Quantum Machine Learning for Genomic Data Analysis

Navneet Singh; Shiva Raj Pokhrel

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Modeling Quantum Machine Learning for Genomic Data Analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the choice of quantum feature map — the way genomic data is encoded into quantum states — interacts with the choice of classifier to determine performance, with Pegasos-QSVC reaching near-perfect recall and QNN…

desk verdict A routine QML benchmark whose headline result—Pegasos-QSVC's high recall—is indistinguishable from a majority-class predictor, and whose algorithm pseudocode is not implementable as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08193 v1 pith:OFFBOEWB submitted 2025-01-14 cs.LG

Navneet Singh , Shiva Raj Pokhrel This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LG

keywords FeatureMapGenomicSequenceClassificationPegasos-QSVCQuantumMachineLearningNeuralNetworks(QNN)SupportVectorClassifier(QSVC)VariationalCircuits(VQC)

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that quantum machine learning can be applied to binary genome-sequence classification and that the way data is encoded into quantum states — the feature map — interacts with the choice of classifier to determine performance. Simulating quantum circuits on the democoding-versus-intergenomic benchmark, the authors find that Pegasos-QSVC achieves recall above 99 percent under every feature map, QNN attains the highest training accuracy across all feature maps, and VQC performs consistently but weakly. The paper's stated conclusion is that QML enhances genomic classification, with the caveat that feature-map-dependent swings in test accuracy signal a risk of overfitting. All reported test accuracies fall between about 49.6 and 51.7 percent, near the chance level of this two-class benchmark, a fact the paper reports alongside its positive conclusion.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the quantum feature map and the kernel it induces. Each genome sequence is reduced by PCA to four coordinates, which are encoded into four qubits by single-qubit rotations (ZFeatureMap), pairwise interaction terms (ZZFeatureMap), or rotations about all axes with entangling gates (PauliFeatureMap); the quantum kernel $K(\mathbf{x}_i,\mathbf{x}_j) = \langle \phi(\mathbf{x}_i) | \phi(\mathbf{x}_j)\rangle$, estimated by measuring state overlap, is the similarity measure that QSVC and Pegasos-QSVC use to separate the two classes. The variational methods (VQC, QNN) replace the kernel with parameterized circuits trained by the parameter-shift rule, while the Pegasos variant carries its classifier as a weight vector updated by stochastic sub-gradient steps inside the quantum feature space, with a projection step that enforces regularization.

What would settle it

Re-run the Pegasos training with the weight vector stored implicitly as a kernel expansion, the standard way to avoid manipulating a vector in an exponentially large space, and compare the resulting metrics both to the paper's numbers and to a classical linear SVM on the same four PCA features; if a classical model already reproduces roughly 99 percent recall at 51 percent accuracy, the quantum encoding is not the source of the reported sensitivity, and if the kernel-expansion version cannot reproduce the paper's numbers, the reported results are not reproducible from the pseudocode.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the interplay between feature mapping and QML algorithm is the main factor in genomic classification performance: Pegasos-QSVC is highly sensitive, producing recall of 99.12 percent (ZFeatureMap), 99.76 percent (ZZFeatureMap), and 99.41 percent (PauliFeatureMap) while holding test accuracy near 51 percent; QNN reaches the highest training accuracy of every feature map tested (up to 55.02 percent with ZZFeatureMap); and ZZFeatureMap generally improves training accuracy over the other two maps without improving test accuracy, which the authors attribute to overfitting. The paper further contends that QML enhances genomic classification performance and offers convergence arguments — convexity of the QSVC dual problem, an $O(1/\lambda\epsilon)$ iteration bound for the Pegasos solver, and barren-plateau scaling for the variational methods — as theoretical support for these empirical rankings.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's strongest numerical result depends on the assumption that Pegasos-QSVC's internal model can be stored and updated directly inside the quantum feature space, a step the paper itself admits is challenging and never shows how to carry out.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim holds, feature-map selection becomes the first performance lever for QML in genomics: switching from the Pauli to the ZZ map shifts training accuracy by roughly two to four points, and no single map wins on both training and test metrics.
Pegasos-QSVC's consistently near-perfect recall makes it the natural candidate for genomic screening tasks in which missing a positive sequence costs more than a false alarm, at the price of precision around 51 percent.
QNN's top training accuracy across all feature maps suggests variational circuits can fit genomic data well but need explicit regularization or early stopping to carry that fit to unseen sequences.
The authors' conclusion that QML enhances genomic classification carries the corollary that larger datasets and multiclass tasks would preserve the observed ordering among feature maps and algorithms, which the paper lists as future work.
Because the experiments run on a noiseless simulator, the authors expect device noise and crosstalk to alter the rankings and defer that evaluation to future work.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Reading the table, I infer that the near-chance test accuracies qualify the conclusion that QML enhances genomic classification: on this two-class benchmark, a constant positive-class predictor would already achieve roughly 50 percent accuracy and 100 percent recall, so the Pegasos recall claim should be checked against such a trivial baseline on the same four PCA features (my inference, not the p
The $O(1/\lambda\epsilon)$ convergence rate quoted for Pegasos is the classical result from the original solver; carrying it over to the quantum-kernel setting requires a finite representation of the weight vector, which the paper does not supply, so a natural extension is to restate the algorithm with the weight vector kept implicitly as a kernel expansion and verify that the reported metrics are
A systematic sweep over circuit depth, entanglement structure, and qubit count would reveal whether the observed ordering — ZZ best for training fit, Pegasos recall edge, VQC consistently weak — holds up or is an artifact of the four-qubit PCA compression (my inference, beyond the paper's experiments).
The comparison that would sharpen the paper's claim is a classical kernel SVM or random forest on the same PCA-reduced features; without such a baseline, 'QML enhances genomic classification' stands as an assertion rather than a demonstrated advantage (my inference, beyond the paper's text).

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the paper's only distinctive numeric finding—Pegasos-QSVC's near-perfect recall—is almost certainly an artifact of predicting the majority class, and the algorithm pseudocode itself is not implementable as written. Nothing else in the paper rises above a routine benchmark scan.

What it does well: the authors give clean circuit diagrams and a consistent experimental pipeline (PCA to four qubits, three feature maps, four QML algorithms) on a public genomic benchmark. If the numbers were trustworthy, the comparison would be a useful data point for practitioners. The convergence section is a readable restatement of standard results.

Soft spots, in order of severity. First, the table: every Peg-QSVM row has test accuracy around 51%, precision around 51%, recall near 99%, F1 near 67%, AUROC around 50. On an even roughly balanced two-class set, that is exactly what a constant positive classifier produces. The paper never reports the class split or a majority-class baseline, so the "excelling in recall" claim has no discriminating content. The discussion's rationalization that "Pegasos prioritizes recall" is simply wrong—the algorithm minimizes regularized hinge loss, which has no recall bias. Second, Algorithm 2 updates a weight vector directly in exponentially large Hilbert space; the text admits this is "challenging" but never gives a finite representation, so the method is not reproducible from the paper. Third, no error bars, no classical baselines, no subset size, no code despite the "open-source" claim.

For a reader: this is a cautionary example of what happens when you benchmark without baselines or class priors. It is not a research contribution. My recommendation: desk reject. If the authors want to fix it, they need to report class distribution, add majority-class and classical SVM comparisons, provide the code, and rewrite the Pegasos-QSVC description to match a valid kernelized implementation.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. Manuscript arXiv:2501.08193 evaluates four QML classifiers (QSVC, Pegasos-QSVC, VQC, and QNN) combined with three feature maps (ZFeatureMap, ZZFeatureMap, and PauliFeatureMap) for binary classification of genomic sequences from the democoding-vs-intergenomic benchmark. It presents pseudocode for the classifiers, a convergence-analysis section, and simulation results on a small PCA-reduced subset using Qiskit AerSimulator. The main conclusions are that feature-map choice materially affects performance, that Pegasos-QSVC achieves near-perfect recall, that QNN achieves the highest training accuracy, and that QML “enhances genomic classification performance.” The paper also claims an open-source implementation and superior results over prior work.

Significance. If the empirical claims were properly supported, the paper would provide a useful benchmarking reference for QML in genomics, especially the systematic comparison across feature maps. The manuscript is clearly organized and the simulation workflow (PCA to four qubits, three feature maps, four algorithms, and four metrics) is easy to follow. However, no machine-checked proofs, reproducible code link, or baseline comparisons are actually provided; the convergence section is standard material; and the key quantitative claims are not supported by the reported experiments. As it stands, the contribution is a collection of tentative observations rather than a validated benchmarking study.

major comments (4)

[§IV, Table I] Rows 2, 6, and 10 of Table I report Pegasos-QSVC with test accuracy near 51%, precision near 51%, recall near 99%, and F1 near 67.4% for every feature map. This is exactly the signature of a degenerate classifier that always predicts the positive class on a nearly balanced binary set: accuracy ≈ P(positive), precision ≈ P(positive), recall = 1, and F1 = 2P(positive)/(1+P(positive)), which equals 0.674 for P(positive) ≈ 0.51. The paper never reports the class distribution of the chosen subset, the subset size, or a majority-class baseline, so the high recall has no discriminating content. The explanation in Section IV-A that Pegasos “prioritizes recall” is also inconsistent with Eq. (11), which minimizes regularized hinge loss and has no recall bias. This artifact, if not ruled out, invalidates the central conclusion that QML enhances genomic classification.
[§II-C, Algorithm 2] Algorithm 2 lines 13–19 and Eqs. (13)–(15) update a weight vector w directly in the quantum feature space: w ← (1−ηλ)w + η y_i φ(x_i), with φ(x_i) an element of an exponentially large Hilbert space. The text itself acknowledges in Section II-C that “direct manipulation [of w] is challenging” and says the kernel will be used implicitly, but no finite representation of w or kernelized dual update is provided. As written, the pseudocode is not implementable, because w cannot be stored or updated explicitly. Since the Pegasos-QSVC row of Table I is the basis for the paper’s most prominent empirical claim, this unresolved algorithmic gap makes those results unreliable.
[§IV, Experiments] The experimental section reports no error bars, no repeated-seed statistics, no classical baselines (e.g., linear SVM or random forest on the same PCA features), and no comparison numbers from the references [3, 9, 13, 22] that the paper claims to outperform. All accuracies in Table I lie within roughly 2–5 points of 50%, and the training/test differences are of the same size as the differences between algorithms; without variance estimates or significance tests, the observed differences cannot be distinguished from noise. The statement in Section IV that the results are “a significant improvement … outperforming the results of [13], [3], [22], and [9]” is therefore unsubstantiated.
[§III, Convergence Analysis] This section restates standard convergence results for convex SVM/Pegasos (Eqs. (39)–(43)) and standard barren-plateau scaling (Eq. (45)) rather than analyzing the customized quantum algorithms actually proposed. The assertion near Eq. (48) that “a positive semi-definite Hessian implies a smooth optimization landscape with no sharp minima” is not generally valid: a pointwise PSD Hessian does not imply global convexity or absence of sharp minima in the nonconvex VQC/QNN landscapes. This does not support the claimed “theoretical evaluations and demonstrations” contribution.

minor comments (5)

[§II-A, §I-B, §IV] There are multiple typos: “PualiFeatureMap” should be “PauliFeatureMap”, “dinmentionality reduction” should be “dimensionality reduction”, “asubset of dataset is chosen and slip into training” should be “a subset of the dataset is chosen and split into training”, and “the the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker” in Section III should be “the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker”.
[§II-D, Eqs. (18)–(19)] Equation (18) defines the cost as the expectation value ⟨O⟩, while Eq. (19) defines it as the mean squared error; these are inconsistent and should be reconciled.
[§IV, Abstract] The paper states that an open-source Qiskit implementation is presented, but no repository URL or code-availability statement appears in the manuscript; this prevents reproducibility.
[§II, Algorithms 1–4] The labels “Extended QSVC”, “Improved Pegasos-QSVC”, “Enhanced VQC”, and “Advanced QNN” are not justified by any comparison with the base versions; the pseudocode content is essentially the standard algorithm.
[§II-A, Fig. 2] The caption of Fig. 2 says the ZFeatureMap circuit includes CNOT gates, but the text describes only independent Rz rotations for the ZFeatureMap; the caption and circuit should be checked for consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an empirical benchmarking study whose central claims are simulation results, not derivations that reduce to their inputs.

full rationale

This is an empirical benchmarking paper rather than a derivation, so the main circularity patterns do not apply. The feature maps are defined from standard quantum unitaries (ZFeatureMap, ZZFeatureMap, PauliFeatureMap) that are independent of the classification outcomes. QSVC is presented as the standard SVM dual problem with a quantum kernel K defined in Eq. 3, and the optimization objective in Eqs. 4-6 is a conventional convex quadratic program. VQC and QNN are defined through explicit parameterized circuits, cost functions (Eqs. 18-19, 26) and parameter-shift gradient rules (Eqs. 20, 28), all stated in the paper rather than imported from the authors' own prior work. The Pegasos-QSVC update in Eqs. 13-15 is the classical Pegasos stochastic sub-gradient rule applied to quantum feature states; its convergence bound is quoted from an external source [23], not from a self-citation chain. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem from the authors' earlier papers is invoked, and no result is defined in terms of the quantity it is supposed to predict. The table of accuracy, precision, recall, F1, and AUROC values is generated by simulation and is not equivalent by construction to any input assumption. The near-perfect recall at roughly 51% accuracy is a serious empirical red flag that should be checked against a majority-class baseline, and the claimed outperformance of references [13], [3], [22], and [9] is not substantiated with their reported numbers. These are correctness and missing-evidence concerns, not circularity, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, but it relies on several unstated modeling choices and one algorithmic premise that is not generally valid. The free parameters are mostly experimental settings that the authors do not report, and the axioms include both standard convex-optimization assumptions and at least one ad hoc assumption about manipulating weight vectors in Hilbert space.

free parameters (4)

PCA dimensionality = 4
Data reduced to four principal components before encoding, a hand-chosen number to match the four-qubit NISQ limit; no analysis of variance retained or reconstruction error is given.
Number of qubits = 4
Set by PCA dimensionality; central to all circuits and directly limits the expressiveness of the quantum models.
Hyperparameters (learning rate, regularization, iterations) = unspecified
Not reported, so results cannot be reproduced or linked to a specific operating point.
Training/test split and subset size = unspecified
The 100,000-sequence dataset is subsampled, but subset size, class balance, and split ratio are not stated.

assumptions (4)

standard math Kernel matrix is positive semi-definite for the quantum feature maps used.
Required for QSVC dual convexity in Section III.
domain assumption The four PCA components preserve enough genomic class signal for classification.
The whole pipeline depends on this; no variance-explained or reconstruction analysis is provided in Section IV.
ad hoc to paper The weight vector w in Pegasos-QSVC can be represented and updated directly in the quantum feature space.
Algorithm 2 and equations (13)-(15) update w as an explicit vector, which is not a finite object in an exponentially large Hilbert space.
ad hoc to paper Positive semi-definite Hessian of the VQC cost implies a smooth optimization landscape.
Section III asserts this without proof; it is not generally true for variational quantum circuits.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling Quantum Machine Learning for Genomic Data Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OFFBOEWB

@misc{pith2026250108193,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling Quantum Machine Learning for Genomic Data Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OFFBOEWB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08193}
}

read the original abstract

Quantum Machine Learning (QML) continues to evolve, unlocking new opportunities for diverse applications. In this study, we investigate and evaluate the applicability of QML models for binary classification of genome sequence data by employing various feature mapping techniques. We present an open-source, independent Qiskit-based implementation to conduct experiments on a benchmark genomic dataset. Our simulations reveal that the interplay between feature mapping techniques and QML algorithms significantly influences performance. Notably, the Pegasos Quantum Support Vector Classifier (Pegasos-QSVC) exhibits high sensitivity, particularly excelling in recall metrics, while Quantum Neural Networks (QNN) achieve the highest training accuracy across all feature maps. However, the pronounced variability in classifier performance, dependent on feature mapping, highlights the risk of overfitting to localized output distributions in certain scenarios. This work underscores the transformative potential of QML for genomic data classification while emphasizing the need for continued advancements to enhance the robustness and accuracy of these methodologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08193 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Illustration of the proposed workflow in this paper. We outline a method for applying QML techniques to classical Genomic datasets using NISQ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Quantum circuit of ZFeature Map. 1) ZFeatureMap: The ZFeatureMap [15] encodes classical data into quantum states by applying rotations around the Z-axis for each qubit. Given a classical data vector ⃗x = (x1, x2, . . . , xn), each element xj is used to rotate the jth qubit. For a single qubit, the rotation is represented by the unitary operator Rz(xj ) = e −ixjZ, where the Pauli-Z matrix Z is 1 0 0 −1 . The mat… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** shows the PauliFeatureMap circuit, where each qubit undergoes an initial Hadamard gate followed by two rotations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Quantum circuit for QSVC. around the Z-axis (Rz(θj )) and two rotations around the X-axis (Rx(±π/2)). The circuit ends with controlled-X (CNOT) gates that introduce entanglement between qubits, encoding complex feature interactions. B. Quantum Support Vector Classifier…

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Quantum circuit of ZZFeature Map. 3) PualiFeatureMap: The PauliFeatureMap [14], [16] generalizes the feature mapping by including rotations around all three axes (X, Y, Z) of the Bloch sphere and introducing more complex entanglements between qubits. The Pauli matrice…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Quantum circuit for VQC. D. Variational Quantum Classifier (VQC) The Variational Quantum Classifier (VQC) [20] utilizes parameterized quantum circuits, which are optimized using classical algorithms to perform classification tasks efficiently [14]. This approach combin…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Convergence of QNN & VQC objective functions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Pair Plot of the First Four Principal Components for the First 100 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[13]

The power of quantum neural networks,

A. Abbas, D. Sutter, C. Zoufal, A. Lucchi, A. Figalli, and S. Woerner, “The power of quantum neural networks,” Nature Computational Science, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 403–409, 2021

2021
[3]

The complexity of quantum support vector machines,

G. Gentinetta, A. Thomsen, D. Sutter, and S. Woerner, “The complexity of quantum support vector machines,” Quantum, vol. 8, p. 1225, 2024

2024
[22]

Performance analysis of quantum machine learning classifiers,

T. Jui, O. Ayoade, P. Rivas, and J. Orduz, “Performance analysis of quantum machine learning classifiers,” in NeurIPS 2021 Workshop LatinX in AI, 2021

work page 2021
[9]

Quantum federated learning experiments in the cloud with data encoding,

S. R. Pokhrel, N. Yash, J. Kua, G. Li, and L. Pan, “Quantum federated learning experiments in the cloud with data encoding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00909, 2024

arXiv 2024
[1]

Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,

J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,” Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018

2018
[2]

Understanding quantum machine learning also requires rethinking generalization,

E. Gil-Fuster, J. Eisert, and C. Bravo-Prieto, “Understanding quantum machine learning also requires rethinking generalization,” Nature Com- munications, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2024

work page 2024
[4]

The state of quantum computing applications in health and medicine,

F. F. Flöther, “The state of quantum computing applications in health and medicine,” Research Directions: Quantum Technologies, vol. 1, p. e10, 2023

work page 2023
[5]

Deep learning for health informatics,

D. Ravì, C. Wong, F. Deligianni, M. Berthelot, J. Andreu-Perez, B. Lo, and G.-Z. Yang, “Deep learning for health informatics,” IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics , vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 4–21, 2016

work page 2016

Show all 34 references

[6]

Opportunities and obstacles for deep learning in biology and medicine,

T. Ching, D. S. Himmelstein, B. K. Beaulieu-Jones, A. A. Kalinin, B. T. Do, G. P. Way, E. Ferrero, P.-M. Agapow, M. Zietz, M. M. Hoffman,et al., “Opportunities and obstacles for deep learning in biology and medicine,” Journal of the royal society interface , vol. 15, no. 141, ...

2018
[7]

Tepi: Taxonomy-aware embedding and pseudo-imaging for scarcely- labeled zero-shot genome classification,

S. N. Aakur, V . R. Laguduva, P. Ramamurthy, and A. Ramachandran, “Tepi: Taxonomy-aware embedding and pseudo-imaging for scarcely- labeled zero-shot genome classification,” IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics , vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 2385–2396, 2024

2024
[8]

A primer on deep learning in genomics,

J. Zou, M. Huss, A. Abid, P. Mohammadi, A. Torkamani, and A. Telenti, “A primer on deep learning in genomics,” Nature genetics, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 12–18, 2019

2019
[10]

A personalized quantum federated learning,

D. Gurung and S. R. Pokhrel, “A personalized quantum federated learning,” in Proceedings of the 8th Asia-Pacific Workshop on Networking, APNet ’24, (New York, NY , USA), p. 175–176, Association for Computing Machinery, 2024

2024
[11]

Quantum machine learning revolution in healthcare: A systematic review of emerging perspectives and applications,

U. Ullah and B. Garcia-Zapirain, “Quantum machine learning revolution in healthcare: A systematic review of emerging perspectives and applications,” IEEE Access, 2024

2024
[12]

A data-encoding approach to quantum federated learning: Experimenting with cloud challenges,

S. R. Pokhrel, N. Yash, J. Kua, G. Li, and L. Pan, “A data-encoding approach to quantum federated learning: Experimenting with cloud challenges,” in Proceedings of the 8th Asia-Pacific Workshop on Networking, APNet ’24, (New York, NY , USA), p. 179–180, Association for Computi...

2024
[14]

Supervised learning with quantum-enhanced feature spaces,

V . Havlíˇcek, A. D. Córcoles, K. Temme, A. W. Harrow, A. Kandala, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, “Supervised learning with quantum-enhanced feature spaces,” Nature, vol. 567, no. 7747, pp. 209–212, 2019

2019
[15]

Circuit-centric quantum classifiers,

M. Schuld, A. Bocharov, K. M. Svore, and N. Wiebe, “Circuit-centric quantum classifiers,” Physical Review A , vol. 101, no. 3, p. 032308, 2020

2020
[16]

A generative modeling approach for benchmark- ing and training shallow quantum circuits,

M. Benedetti, D. Garcia-Pintos, O. Perdomo, V . Leyton-Ortega, Y . Nam, and A. Perdomo-Ortiz, “A generative modeling approach for benchmark- ing and training shallow quantum circuits,” npj Quantum Information , vol. 5, no. 1, p. 45, 2019

2019
[17]

Quantum support vector machine for big data classification,

P. Rebentrost, M. Mohseni, and S. Lloyd, “Quantum support vector machine for big data classification,” Physical review letters , vol. 113, no. 13, p. 130503, 2014

2014
[18]

Quantum support vector machines for classification and regression on a trapped-ion quantum computer,

T. Suzuki, T. Hasebe, and T. Miyazaki, “Quantum support vector machines for classification and regression on a trapped-ion quantum computer,” Quantum Machine Intelligence , vol. 6, no. 1, p. 31, 2024

2024
[19]

Quantum kernel estimation-based quantum support vector regression,

X. Zhou, J. Yu, J. Tan, and T. Jiang, “Quantum kernel estimation-based quantum support vector regression,” Quantum Information Processing , vol. 23, no. 1, p. 29, 2024

2024
[20]

Universal expressiveness of variational quantum classifiers and quantum kernels for support vector machines,

J. Jäger and R. V . Krems, “Universal expressiveness of variational quantum classifiers and quantum kernels for support vector machines,” Nature Communications, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 576, 2023

2023
[21]

Sequential minimal optimization: A fast algorithm for training support vector machines,

J. Platt, “Sequential minimal optimization: A fast algorithm for training support vector machines,” 1998

1998
[23]

Pegasos: Primal estimated sub-gradient solver for svm,

S. Shalev-Shwartz, Y . Singer, and N. Srebro, “Pegasos: Primal estimated sub-gradient solver for svm,” in Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Machine learning , pp. 807–814, 2007

2007
[24]

An introduction to quantum machine learning,

M. Schuld, I. Sinayskiy, and F. Petruccione, “An introduction to quantum machine learning,” Contemporary Physics, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 172–185, 2015

2015
[25]

Quantum machine learning,

J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, “Quantum machine learning,” Nature, vol. 549, no. 7671, pp. 195–202, 2017

2017
[26]

Schuld and F

M. Schuld and F. Petruccione, Supervised learning with quantum computers, vol. 17. Springer, 2018

2018
[27]

Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes,

J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V . N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, “Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes,” Nature communications, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 4812, 2018

2018
[28]

Quantum circuit learning,

K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii, “Quantum circuit learning,” Physical Review A , vol. 98, no. 3, p. 032309, 2018

2018
[29]

Error mitigation for short- depth quantum circuits,

K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, “Error mitigation for short- depth quantum circuits,” Physical review letters , vol. 119, no. 18, p. 180509, 2017

2017
[30]

The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms,

J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 023023, 2016

2016
[31]

An overview of gradient descent optimization algorithms,

S. Ruder, “An overview of gradient descent optimization algorithms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.04747 , 2016

2016 arXiv
[32]

Evaluating analytic gradients on quantum hardware,

M. Schuld, V . Bergholm, C. Gogolin, J. Izaac, and N. Killoran, “Evaluating analytic gradients on quantum hardware,” Physical Review A, vol. 99, no. 3, p. 032331, 2019

2019
[33]

Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing,

Qiskit contributors, “Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing,” 2023

2023
[34]

Genomic benchmarks: a collection of datasets for genomic sequence classification,

K. Grešová, V . Martinek, D. ˇCechák, P. Šime ˇcek, and P. Alexiou, “Genomic benchmarks: a collection of datasets for genomic sequence classification,” BMC Genomic Data , vol. 24, no. 1, p. 25, 2023

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [13]

The power of quantum neural networks,

A. Abbas, D. Sutter, C. Zoufal, A. Lucchi, A. Figalli, and S. Woerner, “The power of quantum neural networks,” Nature Computational Science, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 403–409, 2021

2021

[2] [3]

The complexity of quantum support vector machines,

G. Gentinetta, A. Thomsen, D. Sutter, and S. Woerner, “The complexity of quantum support vector machines,” Quantum, vol. 8, p. 1225, 2024

2024

[3] [22]

Performance analysis of quantum machine learning classifiers,

T. Jui, O. Ayoade, P. Rivas, and J. Orduz, “Performance analysis of quantum machine learning classifiers,” in NeurIPS 2021 Workshop LatinX in AI, 2021

work page 2021

[4] [9]

Quantum federated learning experiments in the cloud with data encoding,

S. R. Pokhrel, N. Yash, J. Kua, G. Li, and L. Pan, “Quantum federated learning experiments in the cloud with data encoding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00909, 2024

arXiv 2024

[5] [1]

Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,

J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,” Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018

2018

[6] [2]

Understanding quantum machine learning also requires rethinking generalization,

E. Gil-Fuster, J. Eisert, and C. Bravo-Prieto, “Understanding quantum machine learning also requires rethinking generalization,” Nature Com- munications, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2024

work page 2024

[7] [4]

The state of quantum computing applications in health and medicine,

F. F. Flöther, “The state of quantum computing applications in health and medicine,” Research Directions: Quantum Technologies, vol. 1, p. e10, 2023

work page 2023

[8] [5]

Deep learning for health informatics,

D. Ravì, C. Wong, F. Deligianni, M. Berthelot, J. Andreu-Perez, B. Lo, and G.-Z. Yang, “Deep learning for health informatics,” IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics , vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 4–21, 2016

work page 2016