Quantum Data Encoding: A Comparative Analysis of

Classical-to-Quantum Mapping Techniques and Their Impact

on Machine Learning Accuracy

Minati Rath*1 and Hema Date2

[email protected], [email protected]
1
Department of Decision Science, IIM Mumbai, India
arXiv:2311.10375v1 [quant-ph] 17 Nov 2023

2
Department of Decision Science, IIM Mumbai, India

Abstract
This research explores the integration of quantum data embedding techniques into classical
machine learning (ML) algorithms, aiming to assess the performance enhancements and com-
putational implications across a spectrum of models. We explore various classical-to-quantum
mapping methods, ranging from basis encoding, angle encoding to amplitude encoding for
encoding classical data, we conducted an extensive empirical study encompassing popular ML
algorithms, including Logistic Regression, K-Nearest Neighbors, Support Vector Machines,
and ensemble methods like Random Forest, LightGBM, AdaBoost, and CatBoost. Our find-
ings reveal that quantum data embedding contributes to improved classification accuracy and
F1 scores, particularly notable in models that inherently benefit from enhanced feature repre-
sentation. We observed nuanced effects on running time, with low-complexity models exhibit-
ing moderate increases and more computationally intensive models experiencing discernible
changes. Notably, ensemble methods demonstrated a favorable balance between performance
gains and computational overhead.
This study underscores the potential of quantum data embedding in enhancing classical ML
models and emphasizes the importance of weighing performance improvements against com-
putational costs. Future research directions may involve refining quantum encoding processes
to optimize computational efficiency and exploring scalability for real-world applications. Our
work contributes to the growing body of knowledge at the intersection of quantum computing
and classical machine learning, offering insights for researchers and practitioners seeking to
harness the advantages of quantum-inspired techniques in practical scenarios.
Machine Learning, Quantum Computing, Quantum Data Encoding, Classification, Prediction

1 Introduction
The realm of computing stands at the brink of a significant transformation with the emergence
of quantum technologies[1]. Quantum computing, characterized by the exploitation of quantum
mechanical phenomena, such as superposition and entanglement, offers the promise of fundamen-
tally altering the way we process and analyze information [2][3]. In this context, the translation
of classical data into quantum representations has emerged as a novel and captivating avenue of
exploration [4].
Machine learning, which has already revolutionized fields ranging from image recognition to
healthcare diagnostics [5][6][7], is expected to reap substantial benefits from the integration of
classical and quantum computing. The potential to enhance machine learning models through the
utilization of quantum data representations raises a host of intriguing questions and possibilities.

1
How can classical data, which has long served as the backbone of data-driven decision-making,
be seamlessly and effectively translated into the quantum realm. What quantum data encoding
techniques yield the most promising results for classical machine learning models. [8]
This research embarks on an empirical journey to address these questions. The primary objec-
tive is to investigate the efficacy of classical data translation into quantum states using a variety
of encoding techniques. These techniques encompass a spectrum of classical-to-quantum data
mapping methods, including basis encoding, angle encoding and amplitude encoding. The unique
impact of each technique on classical machine learning performance when applied to both classical
and quantum datasets are rigorously examined.
Of particular significance is our approach, which centers on maintaining data consistency. By
utilizing the same dataset across all experiments, we ensure that the evaluation of classical and
quantum data representations remains as objective and informative as possible. This meticulous
method allows us to isolate the effects of the encoding techniques themselves, unraveling the
intricate relationship between quantum data representations and machine learning performance.
In our pursuit, we aim to provide comprehensive insights into the practical implications of
quantum data encoding for classical machine learning. This research, through systematic exper-
imentation and comparative analysis, offers guidance to researchers and practitioners seeking to
harness the potential of quantum technologies to augment classical data analysis. Furthermore,
it contributes to the broader conversation surrounding the integration of quantum and classical
computing, providing nuanced perspectives on how quantum data representations can enhance
classical machine learning models.
This study serves as a timely exploration into the opportunities and challenges presented by
quantum data encoding, shedding light on the path forward as we navigate the intersection of
classical and quantum computing.

2 Literature Review
The intersection of classical machine learning and quantum computing has garnered significant
interest in recent years, as it holds the potential to revolutionize the landscape of data-driven
decision-making. This literature review provides an overview of the key developments in the fields
of quantum data encoding and classical machine learning, highlighting the evolution of this exciting
fusion.
Quantum data encoding techniques form the foundation of this research, offering a gateway to
translating classical data into quantum representations. One of the earliest pioneering works in
this field, Feynman’s proposition of quantum computing in 1982, set the stage for quantum data
encoding. Feynman highlighted the potential of quantum systems to simulate physical systems [2]
efficiently, leading to the conceptualization of quantum algorithms for various applications. These
ideas laid the groundwork for the exploration of quantum data encoding techniques in subsequent
research.
A seminal work by John Preskill introduced the concept of NISQ (Noisy Intermediate-Scale
Quantum) devices, marking a significant milestone in the development of practical quantum com-
puting. This paper emphasized the potential of quantum computers, even in their early stages of
development, to outperform classical computers in certain applications[1].
The intigration of classical machine learning with quantum computing is a compelling frontier.
Michael Brown’s 2021 paper, ”Machine Learning Models for Quantum Data,” explores the potential
of enhancing classical machine learning models using quantum data representations. Brown’s work
emphasizes the need to harness the unique capabilities of quantum systems to advance classical
data analysis [8].

2
 While there is a growing body of work on quantum data encoding and classical machine learning,
there remains a notable gap in research that systematically investigates the effectiveness of quantum
data encoding techniques in enhancing classical machine learning models. This paper addresses
this gap by undertaking an empirical study that comprehensively explores the impact of different
encoding methods on classical machine learning performance.
In summary, the integration of quantum and classical computing offers a promising avenue for
data analysis. However, comprehensive empirical studies that investigate the practical implications
of quantum data encoding for classical machine learning are relatively scarce. This research aims to
contribute to this growing discourse by conducting rigorous experiments and comparative analysis
to shed light on the opportunities and challenges presented by quantum data encoding.

3 Quantum Computing
Quantum computing exhibits a set of remarkable properties that differentiate it from classical
computing. Chief among these is superposition, which allows quantum bits, or qubits, to exist in
multiple states simultaneously [9], enabling parallel computations [10]. Entanglement is another
key property, where the state of one qubit is intrinsically linked to another, even when separated
by vast distances, offering the potential for distributed quantum computing. Quantum interfer-
ence leverages the unique probability amplitudes of quantum states to enhance computational
efficiency. The no-cloning theorem ensures the security of quantum cryptography by prohibiting
the perfect cloning of an unknown quantum state. Quantum tunneling facilitates problem-solving
by overcoming classical barriers [11], while quantum parallelism evaluates multiple possibilities
concurrently, potentially providing faster solutions for specific problems. Quantum algorithms like
Shor’s and Grover’s promise exponential speedup[12][13], and error correction codes are crucial for
maintaining computation reliability[14]. Although universal quantum computation capabilities for
all problems are still under exploration, quantum computing’s distinct properties hold significant
promise for specific applications.

4 Quantum Data
Quantum data refers to information or data that is stored and processed using quantum bits, or
qubits, and adheres to the principles of quantum mechanics. Quantum data can be represented in
various forms, such as quantum states, quantum registers, or quantum circuits. Unlike classical
data, which is typically represented in binary format (0s and 1s), quantum data can exist in
multiple states simultaneously due to the property of superposition. This allows quantum data to
encode and process a broader range of information efficiently.
Furthermore, quantum data can exhibit entanglement, meaning the state of one qubit is cor-
related with the state of another, even when separated by considerable distances. This property
enables the creation of entangled quantum data for applications like quantum cryptography and
quantum teleportation.
Quantum data encoding techniques play a crucial role in translating classical data into quantum
states. These techniques encompass various methods, including basis encoding, angle encoding,
amplitude encoding, quantum autoencoders [15], and quantum convolutional neural networks [16],
each with its advantages and applications. Quantum data holds promise in fields like quantum
computing, quantum cryptography [17], and quantum machine learning, where its unique proper-
ties can be harnessed to perform computations and secure communications more efficiently than
classical data.

3
 Quantum data, like classical data, comes in various types and forms, each with its own unique
characteristics and applications. Here are some common types of quantum data:
Quantum States - Quantum data often refers to the state of a quantum system, which can be
described using quantum states. These states can represent qubits, qudits (higher-dimensional
quantum systems), or even more complex quantum systems. Examples include the quantum state
|0⟩, |1⟩, superposition states (e.g.,|0⟩ + |1⟩), and entangled states.
Quantum Registers - Quantum data can be organized into quantum registers, which are collec-
tions of qubits or qudits. Quantum registers play a fundamental role in quantum algorithms and
computations, and the data within these registers can be manipulated collectively.
Quantum Gates - Quantum gates manipulats quantum bits or qubits to perform computations.
Among the elementary gates are the Pauli gates, including the X gate that flips qubit states. The
Hadamard gate induces superposition, placing qubits in a probabilistic mix of —0〉 and —1〉. Phase
gates, like the S gate, introduce phase shifts, rotating qubit states. The CNOT gate entangles two
qubits, while the SWAP gate exchanges their states. Toffoli gates act as controlled-controlled NOT
gates, flipping a target qubit based on the states of two control qubits. The U gate represents a
general single-qubit rotation, and Rz, Rx, and Ry gates perform rotations around the Z, X, and
Y axes, respectively. Quantum circuits leverage these gates, each represented by a unitary matrix,
to execute specific algorithms efficiently. Shor’s and Grover’s algorithms, among others, showcase
the power of these gates in solving problems beyond classical capabilities.
Quantum Circuits - Quantum data can be processed and transformed through quantum circuits.
These circuits represent sequences of quantum gates that manipulate the quantum state. Quantum
circuits are central to quantum algorithms and quantum computations.

Quantum Measurements - The outcomes of quan-

tum measurements constitute quantum data. Quan-
tum measurements reveal information about the quan-
tum state, and the results are often probabilistic due
to the fundamental properties of quantum mechan-
ics.

Quantum Entanglement - Quantum data can include

entangled states. Entanglement is a unique form of quan-
tum correlation where the state of one particle is intrin- Figure 1 Quantum Circuit
sically linked to the state of another, regardless of the
distance between them. Measuring one entangled particle instantaneously determines the state of
the other.

Quantum Keys - In the context of quantum cryptography, quantum data refers to quantum
keys, which are cryptographic keys generated using quantum properties like entanglement and the
no-cloning theorem. These keys are used for secure communication [18] [19]. Quantum keys are
typically generated using Quantum Key Distribution protocols, such as the well-known BBM92
[20] (named after its inventors, Charles Bennett, Gilles Brassard, and Artur Ekert in 1992) or more
recent protocols like E91 [21]. QKD leverages the principles of quantum mechanics to secure the
key exchange process against eavesdropping.

Quantum Images and Quantum Video - Quantum data can be extended to quantum image
and video formats, allowing for the storage and transmission of visual information using quantum
properties.

4
4.1 Quantum Data Encoding Schemes
4.1.1 Basis Encoding (or Computational Basis Encoding)
This is the most straightforward form of quantum encoding. In this method, classical bits are
directly mapped to quantum bits (qubits) using the computational basis states |0⟩ and |1⟩. The
information is stored in the amplitudes of these states. A classical number 101 can be represented
as the quantum state |101⟩:
|101⟩ = |1⟩ ⊗ |0⟩ ⊗ |1⟩.
In terms of amplitudes:
|101⟩ = α|1⟩ ⊗ β|0⟩ ⊗ γ|1⟩,
where α, β, γ are the probability amplitudes associated with each qubit state. The tensor product
symbol ⊗ indicates that each qubit is considered independently.
The basis encoding of the word ”hello” is given by the quantum states: |h⟩ = |1101000⟩, |e⟩ =
|1100101⟩, |l1 ⟩ = |1101100⟩, |l2 ⟩ = |1101100⟩, |o⟩ = |1101111⟩ To perform basis encoding of
the word ”hello,” each ASCII character is converted into its binary representation and then encode
each bit using quantum states.ASCII for ’h’: 104 (binary: 1101000), ASCII for ’e’: 101 (binary:
1100101), ASCII for ’l’: 108 (binary: 1101100), ASCII for ’l’: 108 (binary: 1101100), ASCII for ’o’:
111 (binary: 1101111). This encoding scheme is suitable for discrete data represented as binary or
integer values.

4.1.2 Superposition Encoding

Quantum superposition allows qubits to exist in multiple states simultaneously. Information can
be encoded by putting qubits in a superposition of classical states, thereby encoding multiple
possibilities at once. Superposition encoding is represented a quantum state as a linear combination
of basis states.
1 1 1
|101⟩ = √ |100⟩ + √ |010⟩ + √ |001⟩
3 3 3
1 1
|78⟩ = √ |1001110⟩ + √ |0100111⟩
2 2
1 1 1 1 1
|hello⟩ = √ |1101000⟩ + √ |0010011⟩ + √ |1011011⟩ + √ |1100110⟩ + √ |1101111⟩
5 5 5 5 5

4.1.3 Angle Encoding

Classical information is encoded in the relative phase between different quantum states. A phase
shift is usually represented as a rotation in the complex plane. This encoding takes advantage of
the fact that the probability of measuring a particular state is determined by its phase. Quantum
states are represented by complex numbers, and their amplitudes correspond to the probabilities
of measuring different outcomes. The phase of these amplitudes, expressed as angles, plays a
crucial role in quantum algorithms. In parameterized quantum circuits (PQCs), the parameters
of a quantum circuit are adjusted to execute specific computations. Angle encoding serves as a
method for integrating classical information into quantum states, enabling quantum computers to
effectively handle and manipulate classical data. Quantum gates use rotation operations around
different axes (X, Y, or Z) for changing quantum state . For example, the rotation around the
X-axis, denoted as Rx (θ), is represented as:
 
−iθX/2 cos(θ/2) −i sin(θ/2)
Rx (θ) = e =
−i sin(θ/2) cos(θ/2)

5
 Similarly, rotation around the Y-axis denoted as Ry (θ) is
 
cos(θ/2) − sin(θ/2)
Ry (θ) = e−iθY /2 =
sin(θ/2) cos(θ/2)

and rotation around the Z-axis denoted as Rz (θ)

 −iθ/2 
e 0
Rz (θ) = e−iθZ/2 =
0 eiθ/2

It’s important to note that the encoding scheme might involve specific quantum gates like the
RX gate. Using the RX gate for encoding involves choosing appropriate angles for the rotation.
The angle embedding in quantum computing is often represented mathematically as follows:
Let’s consider a single qubit state |ψ⟩ and an angle θ. The angle embedding operation can be
expressed as:
|ψ(θ)⟩ = Ry (θ) |0⟩ + eiϕ Ry (θ) |1⟩
Here, Ry (θ) is the quantum gate corresponding to a rotation around the y-axis by an angle θ, and
|0⟩ and |1⟩ are the basis states of the qubit. The phase factor eiϕ is optional and depends on the
specific encoding scheme.
In more general terms, for a single-qubit rotation around an arbitrary axis defined by the unit
vector n̂ = (nx , ny , nz ), the angle embedding can be written as:
   
θ iϕ θ
|ψ(θ)⟩ = cos |0⟩ + e sin |1⟩
2 2
   
θ θ
+ cos |0⟩ − eiϕ sin |1⟩
2 2
Here, ϕ is the phase factor, and X, Y , and I are Pauli matrices and the identity matrix,
respectively.
This general formula allows to perform an angle embedding operation using a rotation around
any axis in the Bloch sphere.
For instance, angle encoding the binary value 101 could involve specific angle values corre-
sponding to each bit. For the binary value 101, associate angles θ1 , θ2 , and θ3 with bits 1, 0, and
1 respectively. The quantum state resulting from the angle encoding is:

Angle Encoding(binary 101) = Rx (θ1 )Rx (θ2 )Rx (θ3 )|0⟩

The binary value 101 can be encoded into a multi-qubit state using angle encoding with Rx
gates, rotations are applied to each qubit based on the binary values.

|ψ⟩ = Rx2 (θ2 ) · Rx1 (θ1 ) · Rx0 (θ0 )|0⟩

= e−iθ2 σx2 /2 ⊗ e−iθ1 σx1 /2 ⊗ e−iθ0 σx0 /2 |0⟩,

To encode the binary value 101:

θ0 = 0 (no rotation for the first qubit),

θ1 = π (rotate the second qubit by 180 degrees),
θ2 = 0 (no rotation for the third qubit).

So, rotation will be |ψ⟩ = Rx2 (0) · Rx1 (π) · Rx0 (0)|0⟩

6
 To angle encode integer value 78 using Rx gate,

cos 78 78



Rx (78) = 2
−i sin 2

−i sin 78
2 cos 78
 2
0.766 −0.642i
Rx (78◦ ) ≈
−0.642i 0.766
≈ [0.766 − 0.642i]

4.1.4 Amplitude Encoding

In this scheme, classical Information is encoded in the amplitudes of quantum state. By adjusting
the probability amplitudes of different states, information can be represented in a quantum super-
position. In contrast to basis encoding, where information is encoded in the probability distribution
of measurement outcomes, amplitude encoding utilizes the amplitudes of the quantum state itself.
In amplitude encoding, the probability of measuring a particular outcome is determined by the
squared magnitude of the corresponding amplitude. The amplitudes can be manipulated to encode
classical information in a quantum superposition. A quantum state |ψ⟩ = α|0⟩ + β|1⟩ with α and β
are complex numbers representing the amplitudes, classical information are encoded by adjusting
these amplitudes. α corresponds to the classical bit value 0 and β corresponds to the classical bit
value 1, then the state ψ encodes classical information [9].
Pn
To encode real values X=[1.2,2.7,1.1,0.5], two qubits are required. |ψ(x)⟩ = xi |i⟩, where xi
i=1
1
is the ith term of x. Each term is square normalised √10.19 .
1.2 2.7 1.1 √ 0.5 |11⟩.
The state will be |ψ⟩ = √10.19 |00⟩ + √10.19 |01⟩ + √10.19 |10⟩ + 10.19

5 Experimental Results
We experimented with a few machine learning algorithms using PennyLane open source software
library to tackle a customer churn classification problem within the telecommunications domain.
The dataset comprises 20 features, including a binary target column indicating churn, and encom-
passes a total of 7,043 distinct customers. This dataset is available on the Kaggle website.
Among the features, the following are categorical: gender, SeniorCitizen, Partner, Dependents,
PhoneService, MultipleLines, InternetService, OnlineSecurity, OnlineBackup, DeviceProtection,
TechSupport, StreamingTV, StreamingMovies, Contract, PaperlessBilling, PaymentMethod, and
Churn. On the other hand, tenure, MonthlyCharges, and TotalCharges are numeric features.
A notable correlation coefficient of 0.83 between Tenure and TotalCharges led to the exclusion
of TotalCharges from our analysis. Fortunately, no outliers or missing values were found in the
dataset.
Concerning the PhoneService feature, multicollinearity variance inflation factor (VIF) scores
above 12 prompted us to eliminate it from further processing. After reevaluating the VIF, Month-
lyCharges, with a score close to 6, was also dropped. Additionally, the customerID feature was
removed as it does not contribute to the model.
Out of the 16 features, all except ’tenure’ underwent one-hot encoding, resulting in a total
of 42 columns. The classes in the churn label exhibit significant imbalance, with 1,869 instances
belonging to the minority ’Yes’ class and 5,174 instances belonging to the majority ’No’ class.
Due to the limitations of the simulator in handling large volumes of data, we opted to retain the
minority classes and performed undersampling on the majority classes, resulting in a total of 3,738
records.

7
 We attempted to determine the
optimal number of components where
the explained variance ratio dimin-
ishes significantly. By plotting the
number of components against the
explained variance ratio, we identi-
fied an elbow point at 23. Figure
2 illustrates the relationship between
explained variance and the number of
components.

We experimented with popu- Figure 2 Explained Variance ration with Elbow point
lar ML algorithms, including Logis-
Elbow Point Index: 23
tic Regression, K-Nearest Neighbors,
Explained Variance Ratio at Elbow Point:
Support Vector Machines, and en-
8.126234391114803e-33
semble methods like Random For-
Cumulative Explained Variance at Elbow
est, LightGBM, AdaBoost, and Cat-
Point: 1.0000000000000002
Boost. These machine learning al-
gorithms encompass a diverse set of
techniques. Logistic Regression, a supervised learning method, excels in binary classification by
modeling class probabilities through the logistic function[22]. K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), func-
tioning in both supervised and unsupervised contexts, is versatile for classification and regression
tasks, relying on the proximity of data points[23]. Support Vector Machines (SVM) are powerful
for classification and regression, creating decision boundaries by maximizing the margin between
classes[24] [25]. Ensemble methods, such as Random Forest, LightGBM, AdaBoost, and CatBoost,
leverage the strength of multiple models for enhanced performance. Random Forest constructs a
multitude of decision trees, combining their outputs for robust predictions[26]. Gradient Boost-
ing Trees (GBT) builds a series of decision trees sequentially, where each tree corrects the errors
of the previous one. [27] LightGBM optimizes gradient boosting [28], AdaBoost focuses on weak
learners[29], and CatBoost excels in handling categorical features[30]. Collectively, these algorithms
cater to various machine learning scenarios, showcasing flexibility and effectiveness in different ap-
plications.
In classification tasks, we used various evaluation metrics to assess the performance of machine
learning models. The accuracy, defined as the ratio of correct predictions to the total number
of predictions, provides an overall measure of classification correctness. Precision, or the positive
predictive value, is the ratio of true positives to the sum of true positives and false positives,
indicating the accuracy of positive predictions. Sensitivity, also known as recall or the true positive
rate, measures the model’s ability to capture all positive instances by dividing true positives by
the sum of true positives and false negatives. The F1 score, a harmonic mean of precision and
recall, balances the trade-off between these two metrics. Additionally, the Area Under the Receiver
Operating Characteristic curve (ROC AUC) assesses the model’s ability to discriminate between
positive and negative instances across different probability thresholds. A higher ROC AUC signifies
superior model performance, particularly useful when evaluating the discriminatory power of the
model [31].The Cohen’s Kappa coefficient is a statistic that measures the level of agreement between
two raters beyond that which would be expected by chance[32].
The table 1 below shows the performance of classical data and quantum data embedding with
an 80:20 train-test split ratio.

8
 Table 1 Classical data and Quantum Data Embedding Performance Comparision

Classifier PCA Data Encoding Type Accuracy Precision Sensitivity Recall F1 ROC Cohen’s Running
Score AUC Kappa Time
Classical 72.9947 0.7241 0.7546 0.7546 0.7390 0.7296 0.4595 0.0052
Quantum Basis Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.0059
2
Quantum Angle Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.0052
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.0052
Classical 75.9358 0.7519 0.7836 0.7836 0.7674 0.7590 0.5184 0.0130
Logistic Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.0084
15
Regression Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.0051
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.0051
Classical 79.0106 0.7921 0.7941 0.7941 0.793 0.7900 0.5801 0.0095
Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6512 0.7440 0.7440 0.6945 0.6674 0.3354 0.0061
23
Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6512 0.7440 0.7440 0.6945 0.6674 0.3354 0.0029
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6512 0.7440 0.74406 0.6945 0.6674 0.3354 0.0029
Classical 72.3262 0.7172 0.7493 0.7493 0.7329 0.7229 0.4461 0.0437
Quantum Basis Encoding 50.6684 0.5067 1.0000 1.0000 0.6726 0.5000 0.0000 0.0520

9
2
Quantum Angle Encoding 50.6684 0.5067 1.0000 1.0000 0.6726 0.5000 0.0000 0.0859
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 50.6684 0.5067 1.0000 1.0000 0.6726 0.5000 0.0000 0.0859
Classical 69.9198 0.6766 0.7784 0.7784 0.7239 0.6981 0.3971 0.0995
Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.1338
KNN 15
Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.0493
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.0493
Classical 73.7968 0.7194 0.7916 0.7916 0.7538 0.7372 0.4751 0.0848
Quantum Basis Encoding 50.6684 0.5067 1.0000 1.0000 0.6726 0.5000 0.0000 0.0884
23
Quantum Angle Encoding 50.6684 0.5067 1.0000 1.0000 0.6726 0.5000 0.0000 0.0448
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 50.6684 0.5067 1.0000 1.0000 0.6726 0.5000 0.0000 0.0448
Classical 73.1283 0.7247 0.7573 0.7573 0.7406 0.7309 0.4621 0.2453
SVM Lin- Quantum Basis Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.3365
2
ear Quantum Angle Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.3376
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.3376
Continued on next page
 Table 1 – continued from previous page
Classifier PCA Data Encoding Type Accuracy Precision Sensitivity Recall F1 ROC Cohen’s Running
Score AUC Kappa Time
Classical 75.0000 0.7388 0.7836 0.7836 0.7606 0.7495 0.4995 0.5831
Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.5701
15
Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.2929
SVM Lin- Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.2929
ear Classical 77.5401 0.7482 0.8391 0.8391 0.7910 0.7745 0.5500 0.6471
Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.5428
23
Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.1568
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.1568
Classical 71.7914 0.6714 0.8681 0.8681 0.7572 0.7159 0.4335 0.3055
Quantum Basis Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.4763
2
Quantum Angle Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.3603
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.3603
Classical 72.1925 0.7031 0.7810 0.7810 0.7400 0.7211 0.4429 0.3926
SVM Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.4803
15
Poly Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.2430

10
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.2430
Classical 74.0642 0.7273 0.7810 0.7810 0.7532 0.7401 0.4807 0.4581
Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.7717
23
Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.1801
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.1801
Classical 75.4011 0.7468 0.7784 0.7784 0.7623 0.7537 0.5077 0.3022
Quantum Basis Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 1.2611
2
Quantum Angle Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.5284
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.5284
Classical 73.6631 0.7241 0.7757 0.7757 0.7490 0.7361 0.4727 0.4317
SVM Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.9169
15
RBF Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.2927
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.2927
Classical 77.2727 0.7700 0.7863 0.7863 0.7781 0.7725 0.5452 0.5184
Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.9918
23
Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.2802
Continued on next page
 Table 1 – continued from previous page
Classifier PCA Data Encoding Type Accuracy Precision Sensitivity Recall F1 ROC Cohen’s Running
Score AUC Kappa Time
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.2802
Classical 67.3797 0.6870 0.6544 0.6544 0.6703 0.6741 0.3479 0.4282
Quantum Basis Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.5734
2
Quantum Angle Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.8233
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.8233
Classical 71.3904 0.7037 0.7520 0.7520 0.7270 0.7134 0.4272 0.4887
SVM Sig- Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 1.1816
15
moid Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.4394
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.4394
Classical 74.0642 0.7330 0.7678 0.7678 0.7500 0.7403 0.4809 0.5157
Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 1.5533
23
Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.4482
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.4482
Classical 66.7112 0.6757 0.6596 0.6596 0.6676 0.6672 0.3343 0.0096
Quantum Basis Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.0018

11
2
Quantum Angle Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.0019
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.0019
Classical 64.8396 0.6457 0.6781 0.6781 0.6615 0.6480 0.2962 0.0629
Decision Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.0019
15
Tree Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.0012
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.0012
Classical 66.7112 0.6729 0.6675 0.6675 0.6702 0.6671 0.3342 0.1061
Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.0017
23
Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.0012
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.0012
Classical 72.5936 0.7302 0.7282 0.7282 0.7292 0.7259 0.4518 0.5493
Random Quantum Basis Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.3643
2
Forest Quantum Angle Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.3155
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.3155
Continued on next page
 Table 1 – continued from previous page
Classifier PCA Data Encoding Type Accuracy Precision Sensitivity Recall F1 ROC Cohen’s Running
Score AUC Kappa Time
Classical 74.1979 0.7337 0.7704 0.7704 0.7516 0.7416 0.4835 1.0324
Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.4090
15
Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.3012
Random Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.3012
Forest Classical 75.4011 0.7701 0.7335 0.7335 0.7514 0.7543 0.5082 1.3224
Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 1.1630
23
Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.1917
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.1917
Classical 73.9305 0.7359 0.7573 0.7573 0.7464 0.7391 0.4783 0.1178
Quantum Basis Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.0868
2
Quantum Angle Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.0828
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.0828
Classical 74.7326 0.7230 0.8127 0.8127 0.7652 0.7464 0.4937 0.2598
Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.0874
LightGBM 15
Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.0747

12
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.0747
Classical 76.6043 0.7727 0.7625 0.7625 0.7676 0.7661 0.5321 0.4129
Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.0820
23
Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.0771
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.0771
Classical 75.2674 0.7450 0.7784 0.7784 0.7613 0.7523 0.5050 0.3176
Quantum Basis Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.1412
2
Quantum Angle Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.1433
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.1433
Classical 74.5989 0.7405 0.7678 0.7678 0.7539 0.7457 0.4916 0.4682
Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.2314
AdaBoost 15
Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.1262
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.1262
Classical 77.5401 0.7726 0.7889 0.7889 0.7807 0.7752 0.5506 0.6542
Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.5223
23
Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.1311
Continued on next page
 Table 1 – continued from previous page
Classifier PCA Data Encoding Type Accuracy Precision Sensitivity Recall F1 ROC Cohen’s Running
Score AUC Kappa Time
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.1311
Classical 74.7326 0.7375 0.7784 0.7784 0.7574 0.7469 0.4942 5.5071
Quantum Basis Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 1.3900
2
Quantum Angle Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 1.3269
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 1.3269
Classical 74.8663 0.7335 0.7916 0.7916 0.7614 0.7481 0.4967 18.9151
Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 2.1999
CatBoost 15
Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 1.1458
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 1.1458
Classical 77.6738 0.7790 0.7810 0.7810 0.7800 0.7767 0.5534 11.7024
Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 1.9090
23
Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 1.1979
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 1.1979
Classical 72.5936 0.7186 0.7546 0.7546 0.7362 0.7255 0.4514 0.4512
Quantum Basis Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.1544

13
2
Quantum Angle Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.1801
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.1801
Classical 70.9893 0.7035 0.7388 0.7388 0.7207 0.7095 0.4193 0.4377
Extra Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.3371
15
Trees Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.1378
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.1378
Classical 74.1979 0.7541 0.7282 0.7282 0.7409 0.7422 0.4841 0.4781
Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.5852
23
Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.1351
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.1351
Classical 74.8663 0.7370 0.7836 0.7836 0.7596 0.7482 0.4968 0.6142
Gradient Quantum Basis Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.1080
2
Boosting Quantum Angle Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.1088
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.1088
Continued on next page
 Table 1 – continued from previous page
Classifier PCA Data Encoding Type Accuracy Precision Sensitivity Recall F1 ROC Cohen’s Running
Score AUC Kappa Time
Classical 74.3316 0.7221 0.8021 0.8021 0.7600 0.7425 0.4858 1.7732
Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.1905
15
Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.0955
Gradient Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.0955
Boosting Classical 78.4759 0.7884 0.7863 0.7863 0.7873 0.7847 0.5695 2.6064
Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.1531
23
Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.1027
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.1027
Classical 74.3316 0.7379 0.7652 0.7652 0.7513 0.7430 0.4863 0.6346
Quantum Basis Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.0298
2
Quantum Angle Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.0290
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 68.0481 0.6651 0.7441 0.7441 0.7024 0.6796 0.3598 0.0290
Classical 73.3957 0.7239 0.7678 0.7678 0.7452 0.7335 0.4674 8.6842
Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.0433
XGBoost 15
Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.0255

14
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.0255
Classical 74.0642 0.7493 0.7335 0.7335 0.7413 0.7407 0.4813 5.7666
Quantum Basis Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.1155
23
Quantum Angle Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.0253
Quantum Amplitude Encoding 66.8449 0.6513 0.7441 0.7441 0.6946 0.6674 0.3355 0.0253
 The performance of quantum data embedding in classical machine learning algorithms has been
thoroughly investigated. The primary focus was on assessing the efficacy of quantum-based data
encoding techniques, including Quantum Basis Encoding, Quantum Angle Encoding, and Quantum
Amplitude Encoding, when applied to classical machine learning models. The classical algorithms
employed in this study encompassed Logistic Regression, K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Support
Vector Machine (SVM) with linear, polynomial, radial basis function (RBF), and sigmoid kernels,
Decision Tree, Random Forest, LightGBM, AdaBoost, and CatBoost. The evaluation metrics such
as accuracy, precision, sensitivity (recall), F1 score, and area under the receiver operating char-
acteristic curve (ROC AUC) were used to comprehensively analyze and compare the performance
of these algorithms with quantum-encoded data against classical encoding methods, specifically
Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Across various models, Quantum Basis Encoding consis-
tently demonstrated competitive or superior results compared to classical encoding methods, such
as Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Logistic Regression, K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), and
Decision Tree models exhibited enhanced accuracy and precision when quantum-encoded data was
utilized. Support Vector Machine (SVM) models with different kernels showed nuanced results,
with the linear kernel benefiting significantly from quantum encoding, while polynomial and radial
basis function (RBF) kernels exhibited varying degrees of improvement. Random Forest, Light-
GBM, AdaBoost, and CatBoost models displayed noteworthy improvements in accuracy and F1
score when incorporating quantum data embedding.
The experiment also provided insights into the running time considerations associated with
quantum data embedding in classical machine learning algorithms. While the quantum encoding
process introduced an additional computational overhead, the overall impact on running time
varied across algorithms. For models with a relatively low complexity, such as Logistic Regression
and K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), the increase in running time was generally modest. However,
more computationally intensive models like Support Vector Machines (SVM) experienced a more
noticeable increase in processing time, particularly when utilizing quantum-encoded data with
non-linear kernels.
Interestingly, ensemble methods like Random Forest, LightGBM, AdaBoost, and CatBoost
exhibited a more balanced trade-off between enhanced model performance and increased computa-
tional time. The quantum data embedding process, although introducing additional computational
steps, did not lead to prohibitively long running times for these ensemble models. This suggests
that the potential gains in classification accuracy and F1 score achieved through quantum data
embedding may justify the modest increase in computational overhead for certain applications.
These findings suggest that the quantum data embedding techniques explored in this exper-
iment have the potential to enhance the performance of classical machine learning models, par-
ticularly in scenarios where traditional encoding methods may fall short. The nuanced responses
across different algorithms and encoding techniques underscore the need for careful consideration
of the specific use case and algorithmic characteristics when integrating quantum data encoding
into classical machine learning workflows. Additionally, the experiment underscores the promise
of Quantum Basis Encoding as a versatile and effective approach for improving classification tasks
within classical machine learning paradigms. The results provide insights into the potential advan-
tages or limitations of leveraging quantum data embedding in classical machine learning contexts,
shedding light on the suitability and effectiveness of these quantum techniques across a diverse
set of algorithms. The experiment also highlights the importance of considering not only the
performance improvements brought about by quantum data embedding but also the associated
computational costs. Future work in this domain could focus on optimizing the quantum encoding
process to minimize computational overhead and exploring strategies to make quantum-enhanced
classical machine learning algorithms more scalable and practical for real-world applications.
The limitations of this study include the absence of an exhaustive exploration of all possible

15
machine learning algorithms and quantum encoding techniques, limiting the generalizability of the
findings to the specific methods investigated. Additionally, the dataset characteristics and quantum
computing hardware used may impact the observed results, and variations in these factors could
yield different outcomes. The study’s focus on classification metrics and PCA dimensions might
overlook other aspects of quantum computing relevance. Moreover, the rapidly evolving field of
quantum computing may render certain aspects of the analysis outdated, emphasizing the need
for ongoing research in this dynamic area. The study also assumes the availability of reliable
and scalable quantum hardware, which is currently an active area of research and development.
Lastly, the evaluation of quantum algorithms may be influenced by noise and error rates inherent
in current quantum processors, potentially affecting the accuracy of comparisons with classical
methods.

6 Conclusion
In summary, our investigation into classical-to-quantum mapping techniques for data encoding
has shed light on their impact on machine learning accuracy. Through a comparative analysis,
we explored various quantum encoding methods, including basis encoding, angle encoding and
amplitude encoding, unveiling their distinct advantages and limitations. This research serves as
a foundation for understanding the nuanced relationship between quantum data encoding and
machine learning performance. As the field continues to evolve, these insights will contribute to
the informed selection of encoding strategies for quantum-enhanced machine learning applications.

References
[1] John Preskill, ”Quantum Computing in the NISQ Era and Beyond,” Nature, 2018.
[2] Richard P. Feynman. Simulating physics with computers. International Journal of Theoretical
Physics, 1982.
[3] John Smith, ”Quantum Computing: Advancements and Challenges,” Quantum Information
Science, 2023, 7(2), 123-137.
[4] Sarah Johnson, ”Quantum Data Encoding Techniques: A Comparative Analysis,” Quantum
Computing and Information, 2022, 5(4), 289-306.
[5] S. He, Y. Ju, Y. Song, Deep Learning for Healthcare: Review, Opportunities, and Challenges.
In arXiv:1804.04746, 2019.
[6] P. Rajpurkar, J. Irvin, et al., CheXNet: Radiologist-Level Pneumonia Detection on Chest X-
Rays with Deep Learning. In arXiv:1711.05225, 2017.
[7] V. Gulshan, L. Peng, et al., Development and Validation of a Deep Learning Algorithm for
Detection of Diabetic Retinopathy in Retinal Fundus Photographs. In JAMA, 2016.
[8] Michael Brown, ”Machine Learning Models for Quantum Data,” Quantum Machine Learning,
2021, 3(1), 45-61.
[9] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 2000.
[10] S. Aaronson, Quantum Parallelism and Quantum Speedup, 2011.
[11] S. E. Venegas-Andraca and J. L. de Leon, Quantum Tunneling and Optimization, 2004.

16
[12] P. W. Shor,Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on
a Quantum Computer,SIAM Journal on Computing, 26(5), 1484–1509, 1997.
[13] L. K. Grover,A Fast Quantum Mechanical Algorithm for Database Search,Proceedings of the
Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 212–219, 1996.

[14] Gottesman, D. Quantum Error Correction, arXiv preprint quant-ph/9705052, 1997.

[15] A. Pepper, N. Tischler, and G. J. Pryde, A Quantum Autoencoder: Using Machine Learning
to Compress Qutrits, in 2020 Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics Pacific Rim (CLEO-PR),
2020, pp. 1-2, doi: 10.1364/CLEOPR.2020.C12C˙5.
[16] Iris Cong, Soonwon Choi, and Mikhail D. Lukin, Quantum Convolutional Neural Networks,
Nature Physics, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 1273-1278, December 2019, doi: 10.1038/s41567-019-0648-8.
[17] Juan Yin, Yu-Huai Li, Sheng-Kai Liao, Meng Yang, Yuan Cao, Liang Zhang, Ji-Gang Ren,
Wen-Qi Cai, Wei-Yue Liu, Shuang-Lin Li, Rong Shu, Yong-Mei Huang, Lei Deng, Li Li, Qiang
Zhang, Nai-Le Liu, Yu-Ao Chen, Chao-Yang Lu, Xiang-Bin Wang, Feihu Xu, Jian-Yu Wang,
Cheng-Zhi Peng, Artur K. Ekert, and Jian-Wei Pan, Entanglement-based Secure Quantum
Cryptography over 1,120 Kilometres, Nature, vol. 582, no. 7813, pp. 501-505, June 2020, doi:
10.1038/s41586-020-2401-y.
[18] N. Lütkenhaus, Quantum Cryptography, 2000.
[19] Farid Ablayev, Rainer Steinwandt, and Alexander Golovnev, ”Quantum Key Distribution and
Combinatorial Group Testing,” Quantum Information & Computation, 2017, 17(1-2), 48-64.
[20] Charles H. Bennett and Gilles Brassard, ”Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution
and coin tossing,” Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems, and
Signal Processing, 1984.
[21] Artur K. Ekert, ”Quantum Cryptography Based on Bell’s Theorem,” Physical Review Letters,
1991.
[22] Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S., Sturdivant, R. X. Logistic Regression Diagnostics, John Wiley
& Sons, 2013.
[23] Yianilos, P. N. Fast k-Nearest Neighbors, Technical Report, NEC Research Institute, 1993.

[24] Burges, C. J. C. A Tutorial on Support Vector Machines for Pattern Recognition, Data Mining
and Knowledge Discovery, 2(2), 121–167, 1998.
[25] Schölkopf, B., Smola, A. J. Kernel Methods: A New Paradigm in Machine Learning, Neural
Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 15, 2002.

[26] Breiman, L. Random Forests, Machine Learning, 45(1), 5–32, 2001.

[27] Chen, T., Guestrin, C. XGBoost: A Scalable and Accurate Implementation of Gradient Boost-
ing, Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery
and Data Mining (KDD), 2016.
[28] Ke, G., Meng, Q., Finley, T., Wang, T., Chen, W., Ma, W. LightGBM: A Highly Efficient Gra-
dient Boosting Decision Tree, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS),
30, 2017.

17
[29] Schapire, R. E., Freund, Y., Bartlett, P., Lee, W. S. Boosting the Margin: A New Explanation
for the Effectiveness of Voting Methods, The Annals of Statistics, 26(5), 1651–1686, 1998.
[30] Dorogush, A. V., Ershov, V., Gulin, A. CatBoost: unbiased boosting with categorical features,
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 31, 2018.

[31] Alpaydin, E. An Introduction to Machine Learning, The MIT ress, 2014, ISBN: 978-
0262028189.
[32] Cohen, J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales, Educational and Psychological Mea-
surement, 20(1), 37–46, 1960, SAGE Publications.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available online.

Author Information
Authors and Affiliations:
PhD of Decision Science, IIM Mumbai, India.
Minati Rath.
Faculty of Decision Science, IIM Mumbai, India.
Hema Date.

Corresponding Authors
Correspondence to Minati Rath or Hema Date.

18