Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Benchmarking Quantum and Classical Machine Learning Models on Oncological Data

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A benchmarking study that drives quantum classifiers to 100% training accuracy finds no evidence that they outperform classical networks on oncological datasets spanning tabular, genomic, and imaging data.

desk verdict A careful negative QML benchmark on oncology data, but the strongest conclusion is bounded by a 10-qubit cap and an optimistic resource metric from the authors' own framework. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11373 v1 pith:TVLSH6HV submitted 2026-08-11 quant-ph

Sydney Leither , Thomas Lubinski , Michael Kubal , Sonika Johri This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantummachinelearningadvantageoncologicaldatacancerclassificationbenchmarkingbit-bitencodingresourceestimationvariationalclassifiers
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 tries to settle whether quantum machine learning models are actually better than classical models on the oncological datasets that dominate the quantum-machine-learning literature. It constructs a comparison in which every quantum classifier is trained to 100% training accuracy, so optimization failure cannot explain any gap, and pits them against classical neural networks tuned by an automated search on the same encoded data. Across the Wisconsin breast-cancer dataset, three cancer-subtype genomics datasets, and three medical imaging datasets, quantum and classical test accuracies are statistically indistinguishable at the qubit counts tested, with no clear advantage on the imaging data either. The paper's practical conclusion is that claims of quantum advantage on these well-worn small benchmarks are unsupported, and that the field should move toward higher-dimensional, more biologically realistic datasets.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is bit-bit encoding paired with a resource-estimation quantity derived from it. Bit-bit encoding discretizes each classical feature into a user-specified number of bits, allocates those bits in proportion to how much mutual information each feature shares with the class, and loads the resulting bitstrings into data qubits in the computational basis; because the encoding has a universal-approximation property, the quantum model can be trained to 100% training accuracy. Training uses an incremental warm start that grows the model from four to ten qubits and coordinate updates that require no classical optimizer, which avoids landing in flat, hard-to-optimize regions of the loss landscape. From the encodings, the framework computes $Q_{\text{dataset}}(1.0)$, the smallest number of qubits at which no two samples with different class labels collide and perfect train and test accuracy is theoretically possible; values above 50 are treated as indicating a dataset large enough that a quantum model might plausibly beat classical simulation. The classical baseline is an automated neural-network search run on the same discretized inputs, so both paradigms face the same information budget.

What would settle it

Run the same bit-bit encoded quantum classifier on one of the imaging datasets whose $Q_{\text{dataset}}(1.0)$ exceeds 50 qubits at 20, 30, and 40 qubits and compare its test accuracy with the automated classical baseline over the same five folds; a statistically significant quantum advantage at any of those sizes would overturn the paper's no-advantage conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that no evidence of practical quantum advantage appears on oncological classification problems when both model classes are given their best shot. On the Wisconsin breast-cancer dataset, quantum and classical models reach statistically indistinguishable test accuracies at every qubit count tested; on the three genomics datasets the same holds for the great majority of qubit counts under both raw and feature-selected inputs; and on the imaging datasets the quantum runs are sparser but show no advantage. Every quantum model studied reaches 100% training accuracy, which the paper argues rules out training failures, flat optimization landscapes, and limited expressivity as explanations for the results. The resource-estimation metric $Q_{\text{dataset}}(1.0)$ — the number of encoded qubits at which perfect train and test accuracy becomes theoretically possible — is below 50 for the tabular and genomics datasets, and only some imaging datasets approach or exceed the 50-qubit threshold the framework associates with potential quantum advantage.

Load-bearing premise

The no-advantage conclusion assumes that training the quantum model only up to ten qubits is enough to expose quantum advantage; several imaging datasets would need roughly 27 to 66 qubits by the paper's own resource estimate, so a larger quantum model could in principle change the result.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the tabular and genomics benchmarks, the resource estimate alone predicts no quantum advantage, so future studies reporting advantage on these datasets need to show why the estimate does not apply.
  • Preprocessing improves classical generalization in several cases, but it does not create a statistically significant quantum-classical gap.
  • Because every quantum model reaches 100% training accuracy, the absence of advantage should be attributed to the information content of the benchmarks rather than to optimization failures in the quantum training procedure.
  • The imaging datasets with $Q_{\text{dataset}}(1.0)$ near or above 50 qubits are the only candidates left where quantum advantage could still appear, but the ten-qubit training ceiling leaves that possibility open.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The theoretical test-accuracy metric treats test samples that never appear in the training set as correctly classified, so $Q_{\text{dataset}}(1.0)$ is an optimistic bound; datasets that barely clear 50 qubits may actually sit in the no-advantage regime once this optimism is corrected.
  • A sharper test than rerunning the same benchmarks would be to generate synthetic oncological-style datasets with controlled higher-order feature interactions and enough samples to separate memorization from generalization, then ask whether advantage appears exactly where $Q_{\text{dataset}}(1.0)$ passes the threshold.
  • The fact that removing 99.8% of omics features left $Q_{\text{dataset}}(1.0)$ essentially unchanged suggests the resource estimate tracks intrinsic problem complexity rather than preprocessing details; if this holds across modalities, $Q_{\text{dataset}}(1.0)$ could serve as a cheap pre-screening tool before any quantum training is attempted.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a benchmarking methodology for quantum versus classical machine learning on oncological data, using the Red Cedar bit-bit encoding framework for quantum models and TPOT2-optimized classical neural networks as baselines. Experiments cover WDBC, three TCGA/MLOmics genomics datasets, and three MedMNIST spatial datasets, each with modality-specific preprocessing. The quantum models are trained using sub-net initialization and exact coordinate updates, with all completed runs reaching 100% training accuracy; test accuracies are compared against classical AutoML models and a theoretical test-accuracy estimate derived from collision statistics. The paper's central claim is that no evidence of quantum advantage is found on these benchmarks, and it recommends that the field move toward higher-dimensional, more biologically realistic datasets.

Significance. If the result holds, this is a useful contribution to QML benchmarking: it attempts to control for optimization failures by driving quantum models to 100% training accuracy, uses stratified five-fold splits with standard errors, and compares against AutoML-tuned classical models rather than fixed hand-tuned baselines. The resource-estimation idea is falsifiable and is supported by a public web-based estimator. However, the significance is limited by three issues: the quantum models are run only up to ten qubits while classical models are run across the full bit range; the theoretical test-accuracy metric is acknowledged to be optimistic; and the 50-qubit 'potential for quantum advantage' threshold is inherited from the authors' prior framework without independent calibration. These gap prevent the broad 'no evidence' conclusion from being fully supported for the spatial datasets.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II-C4, §II-D, §III-C] The comparison is asymmetric in exactly the regime where quantum advantage could appear. Quantum models are trained only at 4, 6, 8, and 10 qubits, while classical AutoML models are trained for all bit counts up to Q_dataset(1.0). For the spatial datasets, Q_dataset(1.0) is reported as 66.2±11.0 for flattened BreastMNIST and 56.5±1.4 for ResNet18-preprocessed PathMNIST, and the paper itself concedes in Section III-C that 'since we only ran the quantum model up to ten qubits and the spatial datasets have much larger Q_dataset(1.0)s, it is difficult to make broader observations.' The abstract's 'no evidence of quantum advantage' and the discussion's recommendation to move beyond current benchmarks are therefore broader than the experiments support. The claim should be explicitly restricted to the tested qubit range, or the authors should provide additional quantum runs at higher qubit counts and a matched-qubit classical comparison at the same sizes.
  2. [§II-C2, §III-C] The theoretical test-accuracy metric cannot substitute for the missing high-qubit experiments because it is acknowledged to be optimistic. Section II-C2 states that test samples not present in the training encoded set are counted as correctly classified in the theoretical accuracy, making the estimate 'realistically too optimistic.' Since Q_dataset(1.0) is computed under the same convention, the theoretical curves for spatial datasets do not establish what a quantum model would actually achieve at 50 or more qubits. The paper should either correct this metric to account for unseen test samples or present empirical results in the high-Q_dataset regime before drawing conclusions about the absence of advantage.
  3. [§II-C2, §IV] The 50-qubit threshold for 'potential for quantum advantage' is inherited from the authors' prior resource-estimation framework and from Ref. [60], but Ref. [60] concerns simulation hardness of random quantum circuits, not the trainability or generalization of quantum classifiers. As used here, Q_dataset(1.0)>50 is a heuristic, and the paper should state this limitation explicitly and ideally calibrate the threshold against learning performance. Otherwise, the classification of WDBC and omics datasets as 'below the threshold' is not a strong independent reason to expect no quantum advantage.
  4. [§III-C, §II-C4] The manuscript reports that some quantum models did not finish running within the five-day time limit, but it gives no count of completed runs per dataset, preprocessing method, or fold. If the completed subset is not representative, the 'no evidence' conclusion could be biased by censoring. The authors should report completion rates and, where feasible, analyze whether timed-out runs differ systematically from completed runs.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§II-C2] The exact computational definition of theoretical test accuracy is not given; since it is central to the resource-estimation metric, include the precise collision/overlap formula or pseudocode.
  2. [§II-D, Figure captions] The classical bit range is [1, Q_dataset(1.0)−⌈log2(classes)⌉], while Q_dataset(1.0) is said to include label bits; please clarify and ensure the x-axis labels in Figures 2–4 ('number of bits allocated to features') are consistent with the text.
  3. [§II-A3] The removal of two colliding samples from PathMNIST and BreastMNIST should specify whether this was done before or after the stratified split, and how the conflicting labels were resolved.
  4. [§IV] There is a typo: 'is possible that the AutoML algorithm' should read 'it is possible that the AutoML algorithm.'
  5. [§V] The quantum training software is described as available only upon request; given that the experiments are central to the paper, a more detailed algorithmic description or pseudocode would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Resource-estimation criterion is self-cited and defined in terms of the tested bit-bit encoding, but the core no-advantage finding rests on independent accuracy comparisons.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section II-C2 (Resource estimation) and Section IV (Discussion)]
    "The universal approximation property of bit-bit encoding allows it to form the foundation of a resource estimation framework [27]. With this, we can calculate the number of qubits required to encode a dataset to a desired degree of accuracy. ... If a dataset's Qdataset(1.0) is above 50, it suggests the classification problem has a potential for quantum advantage, as that is around when classical simulation capabilities plateau [60]."

    The Qdataset(1.0) metric and the 50-qubit 'potential for quantum advantage' criterion are defined inside the authors' own bit-bit encoding and resource-estimation framework (refs [26], [27]), and bit-bit encoding is also the encoding used to train the quantum model. The paper's conclusion that WDBC and omics datasets 'fall well below the 50-qubit threshold for quantum advantage candidacy' (Section IV) therefore relies in part on a self-cited criterion stated in terms of the very encoding being tested, rather than on an externally imposed benchmark. The direct quantum-versus-classical test-accuracy comparisons are independent external evidence, so the central empirical no-advantage claim is not fully circular.

full rationale

The paper's backbone is a fair empirical comparison: optimized quantum models (Red Cedar) and AutoML-optimized classical neural networks (TPOT2) are trained on the same bit-bit encoded data and compared on held-out test accuracy, with the quantum model reaching 100% training accuracy in every analyzed run. That comparison is self-contained and not circular: the classical baselines are external, and the observed statistically indistinguishable test accuracies are direct measurements, not consequences of the resource-estimation formalism. The circularity concern is narrower: the resource-estimation interpretation of 'potential for quantum advantage' is built from the authors' own prior bit-bit encoding work and is used to argue that WDBC and omics are below the 50-qubit candidacy threshold and that the field should move to higher-dimensional data. This is a self-citation that is load-bearing for the theoretical-potential conclusions, while the empirical no-advantage result remains independent. The paper also acknowledges that Qdataset(1.0) is optimistic (unseen test samples are counted as correct) and that high-qubit spatial runs were not completed, so the theoretical estimates cannot substitute for the missing larger-qubit experiments; these are correctness and scope limitations rather than additional circularity. No equation-to-equation reduction or fitted-parameter-renamed-as-prediction was found. Score 4 reflects one partially load-bearing self-cited criterion with an otherwise independent central finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on the authors' own framework for both the quantum model and the resource estimate. The main free parameters are preprocessing and training budgets that could affect the strength of the negative result. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • PCA variance threshold = 90%
    Chosen as the number of PCA components explaining 90% of variance in bit-bit encoding data transformation (Section II-C1); affects how many features are retained and thus Q_dataset(1.0).
  • Quantum-advantage qubit threshold = 50 qubits
    Q_dataset(1.0) values above 50 are said to indicate potential for quantum advantage, based on the point where classical simulation capabilities plateau (Section II-C2, citing [60]). This threshold is used to interpret all datasets.
  • Quantum training qubit schedule = 4, 6, 8, 10 qubits
    Sub-net initialization starts at four qubits and grows to six, eight, then ten; models are never tested beyond ten qubits (Section II-C4).
  • Quantum training time limit = 5 days
    Training stops after five days; some spatial models did not finish, so higher-qubit results are absent (Sections II-C4 and III-C).
  • TPOT2 evolution budget = population 10, 10 or more generations, 20 minutes
    Classical AutoML search is capped at twenty minutes per dataset and bit count, which may not find the best possible classical model (Section II-D).
  • Random forest feature selection criterion = average importance > 0
    All features with average importance greater than zero are kept; this is a preprocessing choice, not a tuned parameter (Section II-B).
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Bit-bit encoding with the Red Cedar architecture is a universal approximator and exact coordinate descent converges to a local minimum (from [26]).
    The paper relies on these properties to claim quantum models reach 100% training accuracy and are not limited by optimization, but the proofs are cited, not reproduced here (Sections II-C1, II-C3, II-C4).
  • domain assumption The 50-qubit threshold marks where classical simulation capabilities plateau, so Q_dataset(1.0) above 50 indicates potential for quantum advantage.
    Used to classify datasets as promising or not (Section II-C2); the threshold is taken from [60] and the authors' own framework [27], not tested in this paper.
  • domain assumption The chosen datasets are representative of the oncological QML literature and appropriate for supervised classification.
    Selection restricted to datasets used in prior QML work (Section II-A); this limits the generality of the no-advantage conclusion to these benchmarks.
  • ad hoc to paper Theoretical test accuracy assumes test samples not present in the training encoded set are classified correctly.
    The paper explicitly notes this makes the theoretical accuracy 'realistically too optimistic' (Section II-C2), which affects the resource estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Benchmarking Quantum and Classical Machine Learning Models on Oncological Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TVLSH6HV

@misc{pith2026260811373,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Benchmarking Quantum and Classical Machine Learning Models on Oncological Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TVLSH6HV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11373}
}
read the original abstract

Machine learning is being increasingly used for the detection, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer. However, models often struggle with biological data due to high dimensionality, limited sample diversity, and complex feature interactions. Recent works have investigated the potential for quantum machine learning models to exhibit improved performance over classical models on this kind of complex data, but have often lacked rigorous empirical evaluation of quantum advantage. In this work, we develop a methodology for fair benchmarking of quantum and classical machine learning models, based on the Red Cedar quantum machine learning and resource estimation framework and AutoML-optimized classical neural networks. We assess the potential for quantum advantage in machine learning across tabular, omics, and spatial oncological datasets drawn from the existing quantum machine learning literature, with a range of preprocessing methods, and find no evidence of quantum advantage. Our results suggest that the field should prioritize analyzing higher-dimensional, more biologically realistic datasets to make meaningful progress toward practical quantum advantage in oncological classification problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11373 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The data processing steps for the experiments in the paper. First, the “data pipeline” step optionally applies feature selection or feature reduction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The test accuracy and standard error of the theoretical, AutoML [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The test accuracy of the theoretical, AutoML-optimized classical, and quantum models trained on the bit-bit encoded omics datasets (columns: BRCA, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The test accuracy of the theoretical, AutoML-optimized classical, and quantum models trained on the bit-bit encoded spatial datasets (columns: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [60]

    Computational power of random quantum circuits in arbitrary geometries,

    M. DeCross, R. Haghshenas, M. Liu, E. Rinaldi, J. Gray, Y . Alexeev, C. H. Baldwin, J. P. Bartolotta, M. Bohn, E. Chertkov, J. Cline, J. Colina, D. DelVento, J. M. Dreiling, C. Foltz, J. P. Gaebler, T. M. Gatterman, C. N. Gilbreth, J. Giles, D. Gresh, A. Hall, A. Hankin, A. Hansen, N. Hewitt, I. Hoffman, C. Holliman, R. B. Hutson, T. Jacobs, J. Johansen, ...

    2025

  2. [1]

    Cross-scale interactions, nonlinearities, and forecasting catastrophic events,

    D. P. C. Peters, R. A. Pielke, B. T. Bestelmeyer, C. D. Allen, S. Munson- McGee, and K. M. Havstad, “Cross-scale interactions, nonlinearities, and forecasting catastrophic events,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 101, no. 42, pp. 15 130–15 135, 2004. [Online]. Available: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.0403822101

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.0403822101 2004

  3. [2]

    Towards foundation models that learn across biological scales,

    J. Kalfon, L. Cantini, and G. Peyre, “Towards foundation models that learn across biological scales,”bioRxiv, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2025/06/19/2025.05.16.653447

    work page 2025

  4. [3]

    Chapter 2 - types of omics data: Genomics, metagenomics, epige- nomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and phenomics,

    U. Srivastava, S. Kanchan, M. Kesheri, M. K. Gupta, and S. Singh, “Chapter 2 - types of omics data: Genomics, metagenomics, epige- nomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and phenomics,” in Integrative Omics, M. K. Gupta, P. Katara, S. Mondal, and R. L. Singh, Eds. Academic Press, 2024, pp. 13–34. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect...

    work page 2024

  5. [4]

    A comprehensive review of machine learning techniques for multi-omics data integration: challenges and applications in precision oncology,

    D. Acharya and A. Mukhopadhyay, “A comprehensive review of machine learning techniques for multi-omics data integration: challenges and applications in precision oncology,”Briefings in Functional Genomics, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 549–560, 04 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1093/bfgp/elae013

    work page doi:10.1093/bfgp/elae013 2024

  6. [5]

    Evaluation of prognostic and predictive models in the oncology clinic,

    M. Craddock, C. Crockett, A. McWilliam, G. Price, M. Sperrin, S. van der Veer, and C. Faivre-Finn, “Evaluation of prognostic and predictive models in the oncology clinic,”Clinical Oncology, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 102–113, 2022, artificial Intelligence in Radiation Therapy. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0936655521004416

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    AI in Oncology: Transforming Cancer Detection through Machine Learning and Deep Learning Applications

    M. Aftab, F. Mehmood, C. Zhang, A. Nadeem, Z. Dong, Y . Jiang, and K. Liu, “Ai in oncology: Transforming cancer detection through machine learning and deep learning applications,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.15489

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  8. [7]

    Artificial intelligence in oncology: Current landscape, challenges, and future directions,

    W. Lotter, M. J. Hassett, N. Schultz, K. L. Kehl, E. M. Van Allen, and E. Cerami, “Artificial intelligence in oncology: Current landscape, challenges, and future directions,”Cancer Discovery, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 711–726, 05 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-23-1199

    work page doi:10.1158/2159-8290.cd-23-1199 2024

Show all 71 references
  1. [8]

    Bias and class imbalance in oncologic data—towards inclusive and transferrable ai in large scale oncology data sets,

    E. Tasci, Y . Zhuge, K. Camphausen, and A. V . Krauze, “Bias and class imbalance in oncologic data—towards inclusive and transferrable ai in large scale oncology data sets,”Cancers, vol. 14, no. 12, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/14/12/2897

    2022

  2. [9]

    Missing data in multi-omics integration: Recent advances through artificial intelligence,

    J. E. Flores, D. M. Claborne, Z. D. Weller, B.-J. M. Webb- Robertson, K. M. Waters, and L. M. Bramer, “Missing data in multi-omics integration: Recent advances through artificial intelligence,”Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, vol. V olume 6 - 2023, 2023. [Online]. Availab...

    2023

  3. [10]

    Learning from noisy labels with deep neural networks: A survey,

    H. Song, M. Kim, D. Park, Y . Shin, and J.-G. Lee, “Learning from noisy labels with deep neural networks: A survey,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 8135– 8153, 2023

    2023

  4. [11]

    High-dimensional data analysis: The curses and blessings of dimensionality,

    D. L. Donohoet al., “High-dimensional data analysis: The curses and blessings of dimensionality,”AMS math challenges lecture, vol. 1, no. 2000, p. 32, 2000

    2000

  5. [12]

    A universal law of robustness via isoperimetry,

    S. Bubeck and M. Sellke, “A universal law of robustness via isoperimetry,”J. ACM, vol. 70, no. 2, Mar. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3578580

    2023 doi

  6. [13]

    Quantum computing for oncology,

    S. Ramesh, T. Tomesh, S. J. Riesenfeld, F. T. Chong, and A. T. Pearson, “Quantum computing for oncology,”Nature Cancer, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 811–816, Jun 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1038/s43018-024-00770-9

    2024 doi

  7. [14]

    A framework for quantum advantage,

    O. Lanes, M. Beji, A. D. Corcoles, C. Dalyac, J. M. Gambetta, L. Henriet, A. Javadi-Abhari, A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, C. Porter, S. Sheldon, J. Watrous, C. Zoufal, A. Dauphin, and B. Peropadre, “A framework for quantum advantage,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/a...

    2025 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning,

    M. Cerezo, G. Verdon, H.-Y . Huang, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, “Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning,”Nature Computational Science, vol. 2, no. 9, pp. 567–576, Sep 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-022-00311-3

    2022 doi

  9. [16]

    Better than classical? the subtle art of benchmarking quantum machine learning models,

    J. Bowles, S. Ahmed, and M. Schuld, “Better than classical? the subtle art of benchmarking quantum machine learning models,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07059

    2024 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Quantum machine learning: A hands-on tutorial for machine learning practitioners and researchers,

    Y . Du, X. Wang, N. Guo, Z. Yu, Y . Qian, K. Zhang, M.-H. Hsieh, P. Rebentrost, and D. Tao, “Quantum machine learning: A hands-on tutorial for machine learning practitioners and researchers,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.01146

    2025 arXiv

  11. [18]

    How quantum computing can enhance biomarker discovery,

    F. F. Fl ¨other, D. Blankenberg, M. Demidik, K. Jansen, R. Krishnakumar, R. Krishnakumar, N. Laanait, L. Parida, C. Y . Saab, and F. Utro, “How quantum computing can enhance biomarker discovery,”Patterns, vol. 6, no. 6, Jun 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j....

    2025

  12. [19]

    Generalization in quantum machine learning from few training data,

    M. C. Caro, H.-Y . Huang, M. Cerezo, K. Sharma, A. Sornborger, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, “Generalization in quantum machine learning from few training data,”Nature Communications, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 4919, Aug 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-022-32550-3

    2022

  13. [20]

    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, Jun 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-021-00084-1

    2021 doi

  14. [21]

    Quantum machine learning advantages beyond hardness of evaluation,

    R. Molteni, S. C. Marshall, and V . Dunjko, “Quantum machine learning advantages beyond hardness of evaluation,” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.15964

    2026

  15. [22]

    Is quantum advantage the right goal for quantum machine learning?

    M. Schuld and N. Killoran, “Is quantum advantage the right goal for quantum machine learning?”PRX Quantum, vol. 3, p. 030101, Jul 2022. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PRXQuantum.3.030101

    2022

  16. [23]

    Power of data in quantum machine learning,

    H.-Y . Huang, M. Broughton, M. Mohseni, R. Babbush, S. Boixo, H. Neven, and J. R. McClean, “Power of data in quantum machine learning,”Nature Communications, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 2631, May 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22539-9

    2021 doi

  17. [24]

    Quantum computing for genomics: conceptual challenges and practical perspectives,

    A. Maurizio and G. Mazzola, “Quantum computing for genomics: conceptual challenges and practical perspectives,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.04111

    2025

  18. [25]

    A systematic review of quantum machine learning for digital health,

    R. S. Gupta, C. E. Wood, T. Engstrom, J. D. Pole, and S. Shrapnel, “A systematic review of quantum machine learning for digital health,”npj Digital Medicine, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 237, May 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-025-01597-z

    2025 doi

  19. [26]

    Bit-bit encoding, optimizer-free training and sub-net initialization: techniques for scalable quantum machine learning,

    S. Johri, “Bit-bit encoding, optimizer-free training and sub-net initialization: techniques for scalable quantum machine learning,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.02148

    2025 arXiv

  20. [27]

    How many qubits does a machine learning problem require?

    S. Leither, M. Kubal, and S. Johri, “How many qubits does a machine learning problem require?” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.20992

    2025

  21. [28]

    Ribeiro, A

    P. Ribeiro, A. Saini, J. Moran, N. Matsumoto, H. Choi, M. Hernandez, and J. H. Moore,TPOT2: A New Graph-Based Implementation of the Tree-Based Pipeline Optimization Tool for Automated Machine Learning. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2024, pp. 1–17. [Online]. Available: ...

    2024 doi

  22. [29]

    Breast Cancer Wisconsin (Diagnostic),

    W. Wolberg, O. Mangasarian, N. Street, and W. Street, “Breast Cancer Wisconsin (Diagnostic),” UCI Machine Learning Repository, 1993. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5DW2B

    1993 doi

  23. [30]

    Nuclear feature extraction for breast tumor diagnosis,

    W. N. Street, W. H. Wolberg, and O. L. Mangasarian, “Nuclear feature extraction for breast tumor diagnosis,” inElectronic imaging, 1993. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14922543

    1993

  24. [31]

    Design and analysis of quantum powered support vector machines for malignant breast cancer diagnosis,

    S. Vashisth, I. Dhall, and G. Aggarwal, “Design and analysis of quantum powered support vector machines for malignant breast cancer diagnosis,”Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 998–1013,

  25. [32]

    Clinical data classification with noisy intermediate scale quantum computers,

    S. Moradi, C. Brandner, C. Spielvogel, D. Krajnc, S. Hillmich, R. Wille, W. Drexler, and L. Papp, “Clinical data classification with noisy intermediate scale quantum computers,”Scientific Reports, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 1851, Feb 2022. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1038...

    2022 doi

  26. [33]

    Demonstration of breast cancer detection using qsvm on ibm quantum processors,

    Z. Shan, J. Guo, X. Ding, X. Zhou, J. Wang, H. Lian, Y . Gao, B. Zhao, and J. Xu, “Demonstration of breast cancer detection using qsvm on ibm quantum processors,”Research Square, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1434074/v1

    2022 doi

  27. [34]

    Quantum machine learning for breast cancer detection: a comparative study with conven- tional machine learning methods,

    V . Premanand, M. S. Sai, S. Srinivas, and S. Reddy, “Quantum machine learning for breast cancer detection: a comparative study with conven- tional machine learning methods,”Indian Journal of Natural Science, vol. 14, no. 78, pp. 57 728–57 736, 2023

    2023

  28. [35]

    A novel feature selection method based on quantum support vector machine,

    H. Wang, “A novel feature selection method based on quantum support vector machine,”Physica Scripta, vol. 99, no. 5, p. 056006, apr 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/ad36ef

    2024 doi

  29. [36]

    Comparison of machine learning and quantum machine learning for breast cancer detection,

    U. Desai, K. S. Kola, S. Nikhitha, G. Nithin, G. P. Raj, and G. Karthik, “Comparison of machine learning and quantum machine learning for breast cancer detection,” in2024 International Conference on Smart Systems for applications in Electrical Sciences (ICSSES), 2024, pp. 1– 6

    2024

  30. [37]

    Integrating xai with quan- tum machine learning models for interpretable breast cancer clas- sification,

    V . Bhuvaneshwari and P. Shanmugavadivu, “Integrating xai with quan- tum machine learning models for interpretable breast cancer clas- sification,” in2025 2nd International Conference on New Frontiers in Communication, Automation, Management and Security (ICCAMS), 2025, pp. 1–6

    2025

  31. [38]

    Harnessing quantum-classical techniques for improved breast cancer prediction,

    A. Kundu, S. Muhuri, and R. Kumar, “Harnessing quantum-classical techniques for improved breast cancer prediction,” in2025 International Conference on Quantum Communications, Networking, and Computing (QCNC), 2025, pp. 560–567

    2025

  32. [39]

    Quantum processor-inspired machine learning in the biomedical sciences,

    R. Y . Li, S. Gujja, S. R. Bajaj, O. E. Gamel, N. Cilfone, J. R. Gulcher, D. A. Lidar, and T. W. Chittenden, “Quantum processor-inspired machine learning in the biomedical sciences,”Patterns, vol. 2, no. 6, Jun

  33. [40]

    Potential of quantum machine learning for solving the real-world problem of cancer classification,

    M. Z. Ghobadi and E. Afsaneh, “Potential of quantum machine learning for solving the real-world problem of cancer classification,”Discover Applied Sciences, vol. 6, no. 10, p. 513, Sep 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-024-06220-6

    2024 doi

  34. [41]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2021.100246

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2021.100246

    2021

  35. [42]

    Investigating the application of quantum machine learning in breast cancer: A systematic review: Quantum machine learning in bc,

    S. Kaveh, E. Arezi, Z. Khedri, and S. Sohrabei, “Investigating the application of quantum machine learning in breast cancer: A systematic review: Quantum machine learning in bc,”Archives of Breast Cancer, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 130–142, Apr 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arch...

    2025

  36. [43]

    Biomarker discovery with quantum neural networks: a case-study in ctla4-activation pathways,

    P.-N. Nguyen, “Biomarker discovery with quantum neural networks: a case-study in ctla4-activation pathways,”BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 25, no. 1, p. 149, Apr 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1186/s12859-024-05755-0

    2024 doi

  37. [44]

    Mlomics: Cancer multi-omics database for machine learning,

    Z. Yang, R. Kotoge, X. Piao, Z. Chen, L. Zhu, P. Gao, Y . Matsubara, Y . Sakurai, and J. Sun, “Mlomics: Cancer multi-omics database for machine learning,”Scientific Data, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 913, May 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-05235-x

    2025 doi

  38. [45]

    Multi-omic and quantum machine learning integration for lung subtypes classification,

    M. K. Saggi, A. S. Bhatia, I. K. Mensah, H. Gowher, and S. Kais, “Multi-omic and quantum machine learning integration for lung subtypes classification,”Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 174, p. 107905, 2026. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...

    2026

  39. [46]

    Quantum machine and deep learning for medical image classification: A systematic review of trends, methodologies, and future directions,

    E. A. Radhi, M. Y . Kamil, and M. A. Mohammed, “Quantum machine and deep learning for medical image classification: A systematic review of trends, methodologies, and future directions,”Iraqi Journal for Computer Science and Mathematics, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 9, 2025

    2025

  40. [47]

    Quantum machine learning in medical image analysis: A survey,

    L. Wei, H. Liu, J. Xu, L. Shi, Z. Shan, B. Zhao, and Y . Gao, “Quantum machine learning in medical image analysis: A survey,” Neurocomputing, vol. 525, pp. 42–53, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925231223000589

    2023

  41. [48]

    Universal adversarial perturbations for multiple classification tasks with quantum classifiers,

    Y .-Z. Qiu, “Universal adversarial perturbations for multiple classification tasks with quantum classifiers,”Machine Learning: Science and Technology, vol. 4, no. 4, p. 045009, oct 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1088/2632-2153/acffa3

    2023 doi

  42. [49]

    Medmnist v2 - a large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2d and 3d biomedical image classification,

    J. Yang, R. Shi, D. Wei, Z. Liu, L. Zhao, B. Ke, H. Pfister, and B. Ni, “Medmnist v2 - a large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2d and 3d biomedical image classification,”Scientific Data, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 41, Jan 2023. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01721-8

    2023 doi

  43. [50]

    Extreme learning machines for attention-based multiple instance learning in whole-slide image classification,

    R. Krishnakumar, J. Baglio, F. F. Fl ¨other, C. Ruiz, S. Habringer, and N. H. Romano, “Extreme learning machines for attention-based multiple instance learning in whole-slide image classification,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.10510

    2025 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Quantum Methods for Neural Networks and Application to Medical Image Classification,

    J. Landman, N. Mathur, Y . Y . Li, M. Strahm, S. Kazdaghli, A. Prakash, and I. Kerenidis, “Quantum Methods for Neural Networks and Application to Medical Image Classification,”Quantum, vol. 6, p. 881, Dec. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/ q-2022-12-22-881

    2022

  45. [52]

    Quantum machine learning approaches for high-dimensional cancer genomics data analysis,

    R. S. Mondal, M. Kamruzzaman, S. Saha, and M. N. A. Bhuiyan, “Quantum machine learning approaches for high-dimensional cancer genomics data analysis,”Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 13–32, 2025

    2025

  46. [53]

    Hybrid quantum-classical neural network for breast cancer detection,

    M. T. Rahim, A. Ali, and T. Alam, “Hybrid quantum-classical neural network for breast cancer detection,” in2025 International Conference on Data Science and Its Applications (ICoDSA), 2025, pp. 1256–1260

    2025

  47. [54]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  48. [55]

    Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python,

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V . Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V . Dubourg, J. Vander- plas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duch- esnay, “Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python,”Journal of Machine L...

    2011

  49. [56]

    A systematic review of quantum image processing: Representation, applications and future perspectives,

    U. Farooq, P. Singh, and A. Kumar, “A systematic review of quantum image processing: Representation, applications and future perspectives,” Computer Science Review, vol. 57, p. 100763, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1574013725000395

    2025

  50. [57]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,

    J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei, “Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,” in2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2009, pp. 248–255

    2009

  51. [58]

    Effect of data encoding on the expressive power of variational quantum-machine-learning models,

    M. Schuld, R. Sweke, and J. J. Meyer, “Effect of data encoding on the expressive power of variational quantum-machine-learning models,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 103, p. 032430, Mar 2021. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.103.032430

    2021 doi

  52. [59]

    Encoding patterns for quantum algorithms,

    M. Weigold, J. Barzen, F. Leymann, and M. Salm, “Encoding patterns for quantum algorithms,”IET Quantum Communication, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 141–152, 2021. [Online]. Available: https: //ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1049/qtc2.12032

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    Limitations of amplitude encoding on quantum classification,

    X. Wang, Y . Wang, B. Qi, and R. Wu, “Limitations of amplitude encoding on quantum classification,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.01545

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Does provable absence of barren plateaus imply classical simulability?

    M. Cerezo, M. Larocca, D. Garc ´ıa-Mart´ın, N. L. Diaz, P. Braccia, E. Fontana, M. S. Rudolph, P. Bermejo, A. Ijaz, S. Thanasilp, E. R. Anschuetz, and Z. Holmes, “Does provable absence of barren plateaus imply classical simulability?”Nature Communications, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 7...

    2025 doi

  55. [63]

    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, Nov 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07090-4

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    Hyperparameter importance and optimization of quantum neural networks across small datasets,

    C. Moussa, Y . J. Patel, V . Dunjko, T. B ¨ack, and J. N. van Rijn, “Hyperparameter importance and optimization of quantum neural networks across small datasets,”Machine Learning, vol. 113, no. 4, pp. 1941–1966, Apr 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1007/s10994-02...

    1941 doi

  57. [65]

    Variational quantum algorithms,

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, “Variational quantum algorithms,”Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 625–644, Sep 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s...

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    Shot optimization in quantum machine learning architectures to accelerate training,

    K. Phalak and S. Ghosh, “Shot optimization in quantum machine learning architectures to accelerate training,”IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 41 514–41 523, 2023

    2023

  59. [67]

    Adaptive shot allocation for fast convergence in variational quantum algorithms,

    A. Gu, A. Lowe, P. A. Dub, P. J. Coles, and A. Arrasmith, “Adaptive shot allocation for fast convergence in variational quantum algorithms,”

  60. [68]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.10434

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.10434

    arXiv

  61. [70]

    Challenges of variational quantum optimization with measurement shot noise,

    G. Scriva, N. Astrakhantsev, S. Pilati, and G. Mazzola, “Challenges of variational quantum optimization with measurement shot noise,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 109, p. 032408, Mar 2024. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.109.032408

    2024 doi

  62. [71]

    Accurate cancer classification using expressions of very few genes,

    L. Wang, F. Chu, and W. Xie, “Accurate cancer classification using expressions of very few genes,”IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computa- tional Biology and Bioinformatics, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 40–53, 2007

    2007

  63. [2021]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1515/jisys-2020-0089

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1515/jisys-2020-0089

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.