Connects quantum-state fidelity kernels to a classifier and discusses a hardware demonstration.
arxiv.org/abs/1909.02611 ↗Quantum kernel support-vector classifier
A quantum feature-map record paired with a classical SVM so model quality and data costs stay visible.
Atlas stars stay in the public catalog. Saving this entry to your workspace starts an unstarred private copy.
Quantum kernels use a circuit to map inputs into a feature space and estimate similarities, then hand the kernel matrix to a classical learner. The meaningful benchmark is end-to-end predictive performance and cost.
Circuit & simulation
What this takes and returns
TakesNothingWhat joins here
No input port at this edge: the record publishes no gate sequence and no register, so there is nothing here to read one off — and unlike a declared hole, nothing has been recorded about what belongs here.
Nothing in the Atlas meets this end.
ReturnsNothingWhat joins here
No output port at this edge: the record publishes no gate sequence and no register, so there is nothing here to read one off — and unlike a declared hole, nothing has been recorded about what belongs here.
Nothing in the Atlas meets this end.
This record publishes no gate sequence and no register, so there is nothing here to read an interface off. Absent rather than empty. See all 152 →
How it works
A quantum kernel maps a classical input to a quantum state via a feature-map circuit , and defines a kernel via the state overlap . The circuit estimates by applying then and measuring the probability of returning to : , so each entry of the kernel matrix costs repeated circuit shots rather than a closed-form evaluation. The resulting Gram matrix is handed to a standard classical SVM, which still performs the convex optimization over Lagrange multipliers — the quantum circuit only changes the feature map, not the learning algorithm. This record checks that is symmetric and numerically positive-semidefinite (within tolerance) on a small dataset; as its own caveat states, whether a given feature map's kernel actually separates a dataset better than a tuned classical kernel is a separate, data-dependent question this toy check does not answer.
Implementation
import pennylane as qml
from pennylane import numpy as np
dev = qml.device("default.qubit", wires=2)
def feature_map(x):
qml.AngleEmbedding(x, wires=[0, 1])
@qml.qnode(dev)
def kernel(x, y):
feature_map(x)
qml.adjoint(feature_map)(y)
return qml.probs(wires=[0, 1])[0]
FINAL_CIRCUIT = kernelThis returns a toy overlap estimate; training and held-out evaluation are intentionally separate from the circuit record.
Quantum vs classical
Classical baseline
Tuned RBF, polynomial, linear, random-feature, or deep-kernel SVMs with the same train/test split.
Quantum claim
A quantum feature map may define a useful kernel for a dataset; it does not imply universal classification advantage.
How to compare
Report data encoding, kernel-estimation shots, matrix conditioning, training time, test metrics, and classical hyperparameter budget.
Declared gaps
Nobody has reviewed this record for gaps yet.
Literature & references
A domain application that reports quantum-kernel performance alongside classical counterparts.
arxiv.org/abs/2104.05059 ↗