Abstract:Data dimensionality reduction techniques are often utilized in the implementation of Quantum Machine Learning models to address two significant issues: the constraints of NISQ quantum devices, which are characterized by noise and a limited number of qubits, and the challenge of simulating a large number of qubits on classical devices. It also raises concerns over the scalability of these approaches, as dimensionality reduction methods are slow to adapt to large datasets. In this article, we analyze how data reduction methods affect different QML models. We conduct this experiment over several generated datasets, quantum machine algorithms, quantum data encoding methods, and data reduction methods. All these models were evaluated …
Abstract:Data dimensionality reduction techniques are often utilized in the implementation of Quantum Machine Learning models to address two significant issues: the constraints of NISQ quantum devices, which are characterized by noise and a limited number of qubits, and the challenge of simulating a large number of qubits on classical devices. It also raises concerns over the scalability of these approaches, as dimensionality reduction methods are slow to adapt to large datasets. In this article, we analyze how data reduction methods affect different QML models. We conduct this experiment over several generated datasets, quantum machine algorithms, quantum data encoding methods, and data reduction methods. All these models were evaluated on the performance metrics like accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score. Our findings have led us to conclude that the usage of data dimensionality reduction methods results in skewed performance metric values, which results in wrongly estimating the actual performance of quantum machine learning models. There are several factors, along with data dimensionality reduction methods, that worsen this problem, such as characteristics of the datasets, classical to quantum information embedding methods, percentage of feature reduction, classical components associated with quantum models, and structure of quantum machine learning models. We consistently observed the difference in the accuracy range of 14% to 48% amongst these models, using data reduction and not using it. Apart from this, our observations have shown that some data reduction methods tend to perform better for some specific data embedding methodologies and ansatz constructions.
| Comments: | 12 pages, IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing & Engineering (QCE25) |
| Subjects: | Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Machine Learning (cs.LG) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2511.03320 [quant-ph] |
| (or arXiv:2511.03320v1 [quant-ph] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.03320 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration) |
Submission history
From: Aakash Ravindra Shinde Mr. [view email] [v1] Wed, 5 Nov 2025 09:34:12 UTC (553 KB)