Pulsar classification: comparing quantum convolutional neural networks and quantum support vector machines

Abstract Well-known quantum machine learning techniques, specifically quantum kernel-assisted support vector machines (QSVMs) and quantum convolutional neural networks (QCNNs), are applied to the binary classification of pulsars. In this comparative study, it is illustrated with simulations that both quantum methods successfully achieve effective classification of the HTRU-2 data set that connects pulsar class labels to eight separate features. While QCNNs are superior in terms of training and prediction speed compared to QSVMs, the preference shifts toward QSVMs when the present noisy NISQ-era devices are incorporated into the comparison. QSVMs demonstrate superior overall performance compared to QCNNs when assessed using binary classification performance metrics. Classical methods are implemented to serve as a benchmark for comparison with the quantum approaches.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Quantum Machine Intelligence
Published
2024-09-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42484-024-00194-9
Citations
8
Primary Topic
Neural Networks and Applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.78

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Pulsar classification: comparing quantum convolutional neural networks and quantum support vector machines

Donovan Slabbert, Matt Lourens, Francesco Petruccione
8 citations
Quantum Machine Intelligence
Neural Networks and Applications
2.78
article

Pulsar classification: comparing quantum convolutional neural networks and quantum support vector machines

Donovan Slabbert, Matt Lourens, Francesco Petruccione
article en
8 citations

Abstract

Abstract Well-known quantum machine learning techniques, specifically quantum kernel-assisted support vector machines (QSVMs) and quantum convolutional neural networks (QCNNs), are applied to the binary classification of pulsars. In this comparative study, it is illustrated with simulations that both quantum methods successfully achieve effective classification of the HTRU-2 data set that connects pulsar class labels to eight separate features. While QCNNs are superior in terms of training and prediction speed compared to QSVMs, the preference shifts toward QSVMs when the present noisy NISQ-era devices are incorporated into the comparison. QSVMs demonstrate superior overall performance compared to QCNNs when assessed using binary classification performance metrics. Classical methods are implemented to serve as a benchmark for comparison with the quantum approaches.

Quantum Machine IntelligenceVol. 6(2)
Stellenbosch University (ZA), National Institute for Theoretical Physics (ZA)
Universiteit Stellenbosch
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Neural Networks and Applications
2.78
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Pulsar classification: comparing quantum convolutional neural networks and quantum support vector machines — Donovan Slabbert, Matt Lourens, et al. · Quantum Machine Intelligence (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS