A cross-domain empirical benchmark of quantum-inspired and classical optimization algorithms for machine learning

Abstract Quantum-inspired (QI) optimizers are increasingly proposed as alternatives to classical gradient-based training, yet are frequently benchmarked through classical stand-ins rather than themselves. Across tabular, vision, and language tasks we evaluate three classes: direct implementations of published update rules (Spall’s SPSA; quantum-behaved particle swarm optimization, QPSO, adapted to stochastic minibatches), a documented classical analog of quantum natural gradient (an NGD-style diagonal second-moment preconditioner), and the hyperparameter-control configurations under which such methods are often reported. The gap between these classes is our central result: on the tabular benchmark the hyperparameter control trains with the classical baselines while the direct algorithms fall $$\approx $$ 10–24 points below it, and on CIFAR-10/ResNet18, where v1’s “SPSA” arm was a learning-rate-scaled Adam, Adam itself stands $$\approx $$ 59 points above genuine SPSA. The QPSO adaptation stays at chance on LSTM tasks a legacy “QPSO” proxy solves at 79–81%, at 18–38 $$\times $$ Adam’s cost there and up to 74 $$\times $$ on the small CV model. A seed-paired $$2\times 2$$ factorial on RoBERTa identifies the smaller learning rate as the dominant observed component of the earlier “QNG advantage” ( $$+0.50$$ points at the dataset level); with only three datasets, modified Hartung–Knapp uncertainty spans zero. The configured NGD arm shows no detectable advantage over a learning-rate-matched AdamW (descriptive pooled $$p{=}0.23$$ ) at 6– $$7\%$$ extra cost, and on ResNet18 its trained endpoints have larger dominant-curvature estimates than the Adam family’s. Headline comparisons use five seeds, paired tests, Holm correction, and stated detection limits. We conclude with an auditing taxonomy (direct algorithm / analog / hyperparameter control): within the arms, protocols, and scales evaluated, no advantage attributable to a QI mechanism is detected after these controls.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Quantum Machine Intelligence
Published
2026-09-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42484-026-00444-y
Primary Topic
Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A cross-domain empirical benchmark of quantum-inspired and classical optimization algorithms for machine learning

Görkem Yılmaz
Quantum Machine Intelligence
Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
article

A cross-domain empirical benchmark of quantum-inspired and classical optimization algorithms for machine learning

Görkem Yılmaz
article en

Abstract

Abstract Quantum-inspired (QI) optimizers are increasingly proposed as alternatives to classical gradient-based training, yet are frequently benchmarked through classical stand-ins rather than themselves. Across tabular, vision, and language tasks we evaluate three classes: direct implementations of published update rules (Spall’s SPSA; quantum-behaved particle swarm optimization, QPSO, adapted to stochastic minibatches), a documented classical analog of quantum natural gradient (an NGD-style diagonal second-moment preconditioner), and the hyperparameter-control configurations under which such methods are often reported. The gap between these classes is our central result: on the tabular benchmark the hyperparameter control trains with the classical baselines while the direct algorithms fall $$\approx $$ 10–24 points below it, and on CIFAR-10/ResNet18, where v1’s “SPSA” arm was a learning-rate-scaled Adam, Adam itself stands $$\approx $$ 59 points above genuine SPSA. The QPSO adaptation stays at chance on LSTM tasks a legacy “QPSO” proxy solves at 79–81%, at 18–38 $$\times $$ Adam’s cost there and up to 74 $$\times $$ on the small CV model. A seed-paired $$2\times 2$$ factorial on RoBERTa identifies the smaller learning rate as the dominant observed component of the earlier “QNG advantage” ( $$+0.50$$ points at the dataset level); with only three datasets, modified Hartung–Knapp uncertainty spans zero. The configured NGD arm shows no detectable advantage over a learning-rate-matched AdamW (descriptive pooled $$p{=}0.23$$ ) at 6– $$7\%$$ extra cost, and on ResNet18 its trained endpoints have larger dominant-curvature estimates than the Adam family’s. Headline comparisons use five seeds, paired tests, Holm correction, and stated detection limits. We conclude with an auditing taxonomy (direct algorithm / analog / hyperparameter control): within the arms, protocols, and scales evaluated, no advantage attributable to a QI mechanism is detected after these controls.

Quantum Machine IntelligenceVol. 8(2)
University of Sussex (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
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.