Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source3 min read

Matched but Not Better: An Equivalence-Tested Benchmark of Quantum Machine Learning on Six Clinical Datasets and the QML-Health-READY Reporting Framework

Summary

An arXiv preprint benchmarked quantum classifiers against tuned classical models on six clinical datasets. Quantum models did not significantly outperform classical ones; finite-shot estimation was the main practical cost, not gate noise; configuration errors could reverse conclusions. The authors propose the QML-Health-READY reporting framework.

SourcearXiv Machine LearningAuthor: Mohammed Siraj B, Gousia Habib, Ruban S
Matched but Not Better: An Equivalence-Tested Benchmark of Quantum Machine Learning on Six Clinical Datasets and the QML-Health-READY Reporting Framework
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 3 Nov 2026]

Title:Matched but Not Better: An Equivalence-Tested Benchmark of Quantum Machine Learning on Six Clinical Datasets and the QML-Health-READY Reporting Framework

View a PDF of the paper titled Matched but Not Better: An Equivalence-Tested Benchmark of Quantum Machine Learning on Six Clinical Datasets and the QML-Health-READY Reporting Framework, by Mohammed Siraj B and 2 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Background: Quantum machine learning (QML) is promoted for clinical prediction, but comparisons with classical models are rarely paired or tested for equivalence. Methods: We compared a quantum-kernel support vector machine (QSVM; 4 qubits, tuned bandwidth) and a variational quantum classifier (VQC) with five tuned classical models across six public clinical datasets. All models used identical four-component inputs and 25 cross-validation splits. Paired AUROC differences were assessed using a corrected resampled t-test, Holm-adjusted equivalence tests (margins: +/-0.02 and +/-0.05), and random-effects pooling. Ablation, noise, finite-shot, and implementation-fault analyses were conducted. We propose QML-Health-READY, an eight-domain reporting framework. Results: Neither quantum model significantly outperformed any classical comparator. Pooled across datasets, QSVM differed from the kernel-matched radial basis function (RBF) SVM by -0.006 AUROC (95% CI: -0.017 to +0.004), equivalent to +/-0.02. VQC differed from the best classical model by -0.007 (95% CI: -0.019 to +0.004). QSVM was equivalent to RBF SVM within +/-0.05 in four of six datasets but was significantly worse than the best classical model on NHANES 2017-18 (-0.076). A classically trivial product-state kernel performed as well as the entangling kernel. With depolarizing noise (p = 0.01) and 1,024 shots per kernel entry, QSVM AUROC decreased by 0.054 (95% CI: 0.036 to 0.071). Untuned bandwidth produced near-chance AUROC (0.48-0.59). Conclusions: Correctly configured quantum classifiers approached but did not exceed tuned classical models. Finite-shot estimation, rather than gate noise, was their main practical cost, while configuration errors could reverse conclusions. QML-Health-READY defines reporting requirements for credible claims.

Subjects:

Machine Learning (cs.LG)

Cite as: arXiv:2611.05442 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2611.05442v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2611.05442

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Gousia Habib [view email] [v1] Tue, 3 Nov 2026 15:01:24 UTC (886 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Matched but Not Better: An Equivalence-Tested Benchmark of Quantum Machine Learning on Six Clinical Datasets and the QML-Health-READY Reporting Framework, by Mohammed Siraj B and 2 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Additional Features

Audio Summary

Current browse context:

cs.LG

new | recent | 2026-11

Change to browse by:

cs

References & Citations

SciX

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

IArxiv recommender toggle

IArxiv Recommender (What is IArxiv?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

ResearchersAdvanced

Key points

  • QSVM differed from kernel-matched RBF SVM by -0.006 AUROC, equivalent within ±0.02.
  • VQC differed from the best classical model by -0.007 AUROC.
  • Depolarizing noise and 1,024 shots reduced QSVM AUROC by 0.054; finite shots are the main cost.
  • The QML-Health-READY framework defines eight reporting domains.

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.