Comparative Study of Quantum and Classical Machine Learning Models in Binary Classification
Abstract
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.
Related
- A comparative study of variational quantum classifiers and classical machine learning for tW−tt̅ discrimination at the LHC
- Empirical Evaluation of Quantum Kernel Methods for Classification: A Comparative Study with Classical Kernels
- HyQ-LC: Improving Light-Curve Classification with Hybrid Quantum--Classical Learning
- Margin-Based Generalization for Quantum Machine Learning with Classical Data Encoding
- Comparing Classical and Quantum Machine Learning for Regression in High Energy Physics Collision Data
BibTeX
@misc{mishra2026comparative,
title = {{Comparative Study of Quantum and Classical Machine Learning Models in Binary Classification}},
author = {Anand Kumar Mishra and Ramanuj Awasthi},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2609.23476},
eprint = {2609.23476},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.23476},
note = {CC BY-NC-SA 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Comparative Study of Quantum and Classical Machine Learning Models in Binary Classification
AU - Anand Kumar Mishra
AU - Ramanuj Awasthi
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/20
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2609.23476
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.23476
AB - 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.
ER -