2023 IEEE 8th International Conference for Convergence in Technology (I2CT)
Pune, India. Apr 7-9, 2023
Quantum-Enhanced Support Vector Classifier for
Image Classification
Roopa Golchha
2023 IEEE 8th International Conference for Convergence in Technology (I2CT) | 979-8-3503-3401-2/23/$31.00 ©2023 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/I2CT57861.2023.10126421
Department of Information Technology
National Institute of Technology Raipur
Raipur, India
roopajain@live.com
Abstract—Machine learning plays an essential role in many
fields, most commonly as a problem of approximation to de-
termine the optimal value of an unknown function. In recent
years, quantum-enhanced approaches have been widely studied
to address machine learning issues. The quantum-enhanced
approaches offer better classification results than some classical
models. In this paper, we have proposed a Quantum Support
Vector Classifier-based model for the binary classification of grey-
scale images. We have applied a pre-processing model, including
feature selection and state preparation, to improve the Quantum
Support Vector Classifier method’s prediction rate to overcome
the drawback of Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum systems. We
have evaluated the performance of the proposed model using
the publicly available Extended Cohn-Kanade, Gun, Knife, and
FER2013 datasets. As a result, the accuracy of our proposed
approach for binary classification of images is 95%, 83%, 87%,
and 83% for the classical Support Vector Machine, meanwhile
proposed Quantum Support Vector Classifier model obtained
accuracy scores of 98%, 98%, 93%, and 92% on the Extended
Cohn-Kanade, Gun, Knife, and FER2013 datasets, respectively.
Index Terms—Machine Learning, Quantum Computing,
Quantum-enhanced Machine Learning, Quantum Support Vector
Classifier, Support Vector Machine, Variational Quantum Clas-
sifier
I. I NTRODUCTION
In the 1980s, Feynman proposed the use of quantum com-
puters to simulate quantum systems beyond the capabilities of
classical computers [1]. In subsequent years, many quantum
algorithms have been presented, such as the Deutsch-Jozsa
algorithm, Simon’s Algorithm, and many others. Theoretically,
these algorithms promise to be significantly faster than the
conventional approaches [2]. During the past decade, quantum
computing has demonstrated its potential in both practical
and theoretical ways, attracting widespread attention from
the scientific community worldwide and inspiring researchers
to explore possible quantum computing applications in their
fields.
Machine Learning (ML) thrives on identifying patterns in
data to accomplish goals. ML algorithms learn on a training
dataset that contains empirically or expert-obtained observa-
tions about objects. Various applications of ML include spam
detection, self-driving cars, image and speech recognition, and
product recommendation systems. Quantum Machine Learn-
ing (QML) provides novel avenues for quantum information
979-8-3503-3401-2/23/$31.00 ©2023 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: National Institute of Technology Karnataka Surathkal. Downloaded on May 08,2024 at 18:10:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Gyanendra K Verma
Department of Information Technology
National Institute of Technology Raipur
Raipur, India
gkverma.it@nitrr.ac.in
processing, such as quantum state categorization. From the
perspective of quantum computing, QML techniques are used
to analyze quantum data by applying ML algorithms. Also,
utilizing ML algorithms written in the quantum programming
language to analyze classical data is known as quantum-
enhanced ML [3-4]. In ML, classification involves predicting
classes into which data instances will fall. In quantum clas-
sification, a finite number of copies of a particular quantum
state indicate the class to which the copies belong. It uses the
concept of quantum entanglement to enhance the accuracy and
speed up the classification process [5-6]. QML algorithms are
less fault tolerant and the area of QML is both fascinating
and practical because it could address problems involving
computation and time complexities, and model security.
This paper aims to consider the practical applications of the
Quantum Support Vector Machine (QSVM) for the classifica-
tion of different datasets using a pre-trained Quantum Support
Vector Classifier (QSVC) model from Qiskit. We have also
studied the analytical performance of the Variational Quantum
Classifier (VQC) with various feature mapping techniques.
For the proposed model using QSVM, we have employed
regularisation to smoothen the hyperplane classifiers to bridge
the gap between decision boundaries that appear classical
and those driven by the complex quantum state. This enables
QSVC to perform better than traditional Support Vector Ma-
chines (SVM) despite the complex nature of the datasets. As
a result, QSVC’s classification performance is good across
various datasets and, in some cases, even better.
The key contributions of this paper are:
1) In consideration of the potential of QML, binary classifi-
cation of images of the FER2013, Gun, Knife, and CK+
datasets are presented.
2) We aim to examine and compare the performance of
classical and quantum SVM classification methods with
four different datasets.
3) We have presented a Deep Learning (DL) approach for
feature extraction to enhance the performance of quantum
classification approach.
4) We have analyzed the performance of the QSVC model
for the binary classification of images.
This paper is divided into six sections. Section II discusses
1
 some of the previous works in the QML domain. Section
III covers the overview of classical SVM, QSVM, and VQC.
The proposed methodology is described in Section IV, and the
experimental results and findings are discussed in Section V.
The paper is concluded in Section VI.
II. R ELATED W ORKS
This section discusses a brief overview of the applications of
QML approaches in several ML fields. A QSVM that operates
on samples and features with a logarithmic level of complexity
was introduced in the research article [7]. The QSVM for
huge data offers exponential speedups in the feature space
dimensions and the number of samples compared to a tradi-
tional SVM. The suggested research [8] aims to investigate a
method for calculating emotional intensities in runtime that is
motivated by quantum mechanics. The Amsterdam Dynamic
Facial Expression Set dataset was used to characterize states
and quantify emotion intensities provided by individuals.
A multimodal fusion model that characterizes various quan-
tum measurement processes in identifying a speaker’s emo-
tions in conversation and picking them up using a quantum-
like neural network is presented in [9]. In article [10], a frame-
work for Quantum-inspired Multimodal Sentiment Analysis
is presented that consists of a multimodal decision fusion
strategy inspired by quantum interference and a quantum-
inspired multimodal representation model. In the quantum-
inspired framework [11], the word interaction within a single
modality and the interaction across modalities are formulated
with superposition and entanglement, respectively, at different
stages. A QML-based strategy was suggested by [12] as a po-
tential answer to the challenge of facial expression recognition.
This method heavily utilizes quantum interference to define
an effective classifier for a given dataset. A novel general-
purpose classifier built on quantum probability theory applied
to emotion recognition is presented in [13]. This classifier
performs well in terms of classification accuracy.
Willsch et al. [14] aims to typeset the semantic relationships
between pairs of keywords in various writings using the
concepts of quantum geometry and correlation. It explicitly
examines talks with specific terms categorized as hate or non-
hate remarks. To clarify the idea of similar meaning, the study
contrasts this method with the traditional methodology known
as cosine similarity. The article [15] used a QA-SVM quantum
annealer to implement SVM. It uses a single-shot training
method based on the QUBO equation to train and optimize
SVM.
III. M ACHINE L EARNING WITH Q UANTUM C OMPUTING
Machine Learning is classified into two types: Supervised
ML and Unsupervised ML. Predicting an object’s class (clas-
sification) or some unobserved attribute (regression) based on
several observations are typical task in supervised ML. It is the
process of identifying patterns in a labeled dataset to classify
the new data point.
In unsupervised ML, the objective is to uncover a hid-
den structure in the data, such as finding natural clusters
2
Authorized licensed use limited to: National Institute of Technology Karnataka Surathkal. Downloaded on May 08,2024 at 18:10:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
(clustering), dimensionality reduction, or explicitly learning
a probability function (also known as a density function) that
captures the accurate data distribution (density estimation) [7].
A. Learning with a Classical Dataset
In classical ML, the learning machine is presumed to be a
classical computer, and the observations are implicitly believed
to be classical. For instance, a training dataset with n data
points in supervised learning might be expressed as Dn =
{(x1 , y1 ),(x2 , y2 ),−−,(xn , yn )} where xj would be a vector of
observations on the characteristics of the j th object (or data
point) and yj is the corresponding class of that object. The
key distinction between supervised and unsupervised learning
is the absence of information around the yj values in the latter
[8].
B. Learning with a Quantum Dataset
In quantum context, ML algorithms require a training
dataset. However, now the dataset includes quantum states
instead of conventional observations, and the machine is also a
quantum computer [9]. A training dataset with n pure quantum
states can be expressed as:
Dn ={(|ϕ1 , y1 ),(|ϕ2 , y2 ),−−,(|ϕn , yn )}, where |ϕi  is
the ith quantum state of the training dataset and yi is the
class associated with this state, where the states are quantum,
but the classes remain classical.
The task of binary classification consists in predicting the
class y{-1,1} of an unknown quantum state |ϕ, given a single
copy of this state. For classification, several measurement
strategies exist in the quantum context, such as maximizing
the probability of predicting the class of an unknown quantum
state or minimizing the probability of making a wrong guess
[10-11].
C. SVM as a Classifier
SVM is a supervised ML classification algorithm. The task
of the SVM is to classify a vector into one of two classes
for the binary classification. Given M training data points of
the form {(xi , yi ) : xi Rn , yi = ± 1} depending on the
class to which xi belongs, i.e. for yi =-1 or 1. The SVM
identifies a maximum margin hyperplane with a normal vector
w
 that splits the data points for the classification. Based on
the data point, the algorithm tries to predict the category to
which datapoint belongs. Classical SVM works well for binary
classification for low-dimension datasets. Classical SVM will
not work effectively for the multiclass dataset. This issue can
be overcome by leveraging the properties of QML, such as
entanglement and superposition [12].
D. Quantum enhanced SVM: Kernel Method
In the growing science of QML, which studies how quantum
computers may learn from data, quantum-enhanced SVM
resemblance is particularly noticeable and useful. If the data
is classical, QML algorithms must transform that information
into the physical states of quantum systems. This method
corresponds to a feature map that encodes information into
quantum states [13].
 The core idea in quantum computing and kernel methods is
very similar. Both rely on mathematical frameworks that map
and analyze data in high-dimensional spaces [14]. In kernel
methods, kernels are used to allow access to the feature space
while in quantum computing, measurements are used (that can
alternatively be expressed by the inner products of quantum
states) to provide access to the Hilbert space of quantum states.
Data-dependent models compare training points with the
new input by defining a kernel for the input space X. It is
considered that similar inputs will produce similar results.
Since the model has specific trainable parameters, one can
prioritize training inputs based on how important they are for
making predictions.
A kernel is a bivariate function, defined as κ : X ∗ X → R,
such that for any set Xf ={x1 , x2 , −−, xM } ⊂ X the matrix
κ with entries κ(n,m) = κ(xn , xm ), where xn ,xm Xf . As a
consequence, κ(xn , xm ) ≥ 0 and κ’(xn , xm ) = κ(xn , xm ).
Kernel methods find the distance between data points x and
x , through a kernel κ(x, x ) as shown in figure 1. The kernel
function may differ depending on the input basis function, like
polynomial, gaussian, or sigmoid.
Figure 2 shows that for every positive definite kernel, a
feature space F exists that is produced by mapping the inputs
with the nonlinear map φ(x), so that the kernel of two inputs
is equal to the inner product of their feature-mapped versions,
κ(xn , xm ) =  φ (x) | φ (x )  [16].
Based on a straightforward concept, kernel density esti-
mation for classification develops a class-conditional model
distribution from data. When defining a probability distribution
across data points, a kernel density estimator gives high
probabilities to regions with large data [17].
Fig. 1. Kernel distribution for data point x [22].
Fig. 2. Mapping Classical feature space to Quantum feature space [22].
E. Variational Quantum Classifier
VQC is an algorithm used for classification in the QML
[18]. It is based on techniques for figuring out the optimum
3
Authorized licensed use limited to: National Institute of Technology Karnataka Surathkal. Downloaded on May 08,2024 at 18:10:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
hyperplane to linearly separate the embedded data. The various
stages of a VQC are shown in figure 3. The feature map circuit
Uφ(x) that implements the data xR first maps them to a pure
quantum state |φ(x). The quantum state is then subjected to
a short-depth quantum circuit W (θ) made up of θ parameters
that will be discovered from the training set. Finding the circuit
W (θ) is analogous to finding the separating hyperplane as in
the SVM, with the promise of quantum advantage arising from
the difficulties for classical techniques to construct the feature
map φ(x).
The final quantum state is measured on a computational
basis, and the measurement results are linearly combined to
arrive at the binary decision. The sign of the classifier function
is then used to determine the estimated label. Optimal learning
can be attained by minimizing the cost function expressed
as empirical risk or binary cross entropy with respect to the
training data [19-20].
There are several feature maps for classification, such
as the FirstOrderExpansion, and SecondOrderExpansion, like
the ZFeature map, ZZFeatureMap, and Pauli’s Feature Map
[21]. The benefit of quantum computing becomes apparent
when non-classical simulated quantum feature maps are se-
lected above those that can be simulated on classical comput-
ers [22].
Fig. 3. Variational Quantum Classifier [18].
IV. P ROPOSED M ETHODOLOGY
This section discusses the proposed framework for the
classification of images on four different datasets. The detailed
description of each dataset is discussed in this section. The
subsection discusses the steps used for the model building.
A. Dataset Description
We have analyzed our proposed model with the four differ-
ent publicly available image datasets. We have chosen lesser
number of images to make our model simple and faster as
the simulations are carried out in the classically configured
systems. A brief description of the datasets are given below.
1) FER-2013: FER2013 [23] is one particular emotion
recognition dataset that takes into account the challenging
naturalistic contexts and constraints. It was presented
at the International Conference on Machine Learning
(ICML) in 2013. The data set comprises grayscale images
of human faces of size 48x48 pixels. The dataset is
divided into seven groups based on the emotion expressed
 in the facial expression as described in Table 1. The
public test set has 3,589 instances, for a total of 32298
images, whereas the training set has 28,709 examples.
2) Gun Dataset: The Internet Movie Firearms Database
(IMFDb) [24] is a database of guns. The images of
firearms are taken from Hollywood productions, TV
shows, video games, and Japanese animation. Assault
rifles, battle rifles, bullpups, carbines, flare guns, fictional
firearms, grenades, underwater weapons, etc., are all
covered in the category of firearms. There are about
thirty categories with around 2,122 instances of guns in
this database. The negative images are randomly selected
from a variety of categories on the internet, including
those for creatures, flowers, and landscapes.
3) Knife Dataset: The dataset [25] used for knife detection
was gathered from security camera footage. The photos
were reduced from the original frames using the slid-
ing window technique to 100 by 100 pixels each. The
database comprises two classes of images: positive (a
knife is visible in the image while being held in hand) and
negative (a knife is not visible in the image) instances.
The total number of images in the dataset is 12,899 with
9340 negative and 3559 positive examples.
4) Extended Cohn-Kanade (CK+): It is the most widely used
laboratory-controlled FEC database which contains 593
video clips from 123 distinct participants [26]. With a
resolution of 640 ∗ 490 pixels and 30 frames per second,
each video depicts a facial change from a neutral expres-
sion to a specified peak emotion. From the perspective
of evaluation, the CK+ dataset has a good variation for
each expression type.
B. Detailed Description of the proposed QSVC model
The block representation of the proposed model for clas-
sification using the classical SVM and QSVC technique is
described in figure 4. The proposed architecture can be divided
into various functional units described below.
1) Data Preprocessing: After loading the dataset images,
we use the Resnet152V2 model [27] to extract the best features
from the images with a default input shape of 224∗224 of the
model. The selected features are then split into training and
testing parts, with 75 percent of the dataset for training and the
rest for testing. These steps are being performed for Happy and
Neutral classes for the FER2013, CK+ dataset, and Negative
and Positive classes for the Gun and Knife datasets for binary
classification.
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is applied to re-
duce the dimension (features) of the dataset. The number of
principal components selected from the dataset decides the
qubits used for the model. Although a dataset’s accuracy may
change when its number of features are reduced, doing so can
be done for simplification because smaller datasets are simpler
to examine, easier to analyze, and quicker for ML algorithms.
We have selected two principal components for our pro-
posed approach for each dataset. The dataplot of (a) Gun, (b)
FER2013, (c) CK+, and (d) Knife datasets is shown in figure 5,
4
Authorized licensed use limited to: National Institute of Technology Karnataka Surathkal. Downloaded on May 08,2024 at 18:10:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
where the Gun and Knife datasets are more closely correlated
than the FER2013 and CK+ datasets.
2) Variational Quantum Classifier (VQC): In general, there
are three steps to this QML model: state preparation, model
circuit, and measurement.
1) State Preparation/Data encoding: For implementing the
QML technique, we must first convert the classical data
into a quantum state in Hilbert space using a quantum
feature map, a process known as data embedding. We
are creating a quantum circuit whose attributes are deter-
mined by the input data, in this case, the datasets from
FER2013, CK+, Gun, and Knife.
2) Feature Map - Loading the Data into the Quantum Sys-
tem: For our model, we used ZZFeatureMap, a second-
order Pauli-Z evolution circuit that encodes the data in
the feature map according to the connectivity graph and
the classical data map.
The data map function of ZZFeatureMap is given in
equation (1) as
φs : x → (Π − xi )(Π − xj ) (1)
where, φs is a classical nonlinear function that is mapping
data points xi , xj and |s| ≤ 2
3) Variational Circuit - The quantum classification circuit:
This is a very crucial step for classification using quantum
circuits. We have added a short-depth variational circuit
to the feature maps defined above. The parameters of
this variational circuit are then trained in the classical
optimization loop until it classifies the data points cor-
rectly. This is the algorithm’s learning stage, and the
model’s accuracy can vary based on the variational circuit
one chooses. For our proposed model, we have used
the pretrained QSVC model from Qiskit with the Fi-
delityQuantumKernel class to evaluate the kernel matrix
from ZZfeaturemap and the reference implementation of
ComputeUncompute fidelity to compute the overlapping
between the states with Sampler primitive.
V. E XPERIMENTAL R ESULT AND A NALYSIS
Feature extraction and classification were executed by using
the classical and quantum SVM in Jupyter notebook with
available QML libraries provided by Qiskit, Cirq, Pennylane,
Scikit, and various others for classical ML. We have im-
plemented our proposed model for binary classification on
FER2013, CK+, Gun, and Knife datasets with four hundred
samples for training and one hundred samples for testing, with
two principal components (i.e., two qubits) using ZZfeature
map with linear entanglement for two reps. The feature map
is then calculated using the FidelityQuantumkernel class with
the default values for Sampler primitive and the Compu-
teUncompute fidelity. The performance evaluation metrics
like Precision (PR), Recall, and F1 score for the proposed
model for QSVC and classical SVM for various datasets are
presented in Table 1. By analyzing the result, we found that the
datasets which are densely correlated give less classification
accuracy with the classical SVM technique but outperform
 Fig. 4. Proposed model architecture for image classification.

Fig. 5. Dataplot of (a) Gun (b) FER2013 (c) CK+ (d) Knife Datasets for
binary classification.
(a) (b)

TABLE I Fig. 6. Confusion matrix on the CK+ dataset with (a) Classical SVM and
ACCURACY ANALYSIS OF SVM AND QSVM (QSVC) WITH THE (b) QSVC respectively.
DIFFERENT DATASETS .

Dataset Model Precision Recall F1 score Accuracy

SVM 0.87 0.87 0.87 87%
Knife
Quantum SVM 0.93 0.93 0.931 93%
SVM 0.93 0.72 0.81 83%
Gun
Quantum SVM 0.99 0.97 0.977 98%
SVM 0.93 0.97 0.948 95%
CK+
Quantum SVM 0.98 0.99 0.985 98%
SVM 0.85 0.81 0.835 83%
FER2013
Quantum SVM 0.91 0.92 0.915 92%

the QSVC model. The sparsely correlated datasets have good
classification with the classical SVM and better performance
evaluation criteria with the QSVC technique.
Table 2 shows the results comparison of our proposed
model with the other methods implementing the classical
SVM, VQC, and QSVM for different datasets. From this, we
conclude that the proposed QSVC model outperforms them by
providing better classification results with various datasets.
As a criterion for evaluating the proposed system, we have
(a) (b)
Fig. 7. Confusion matrix on the Gun dataset with (a) Classical SVM and (b)
QSVC respectively.
utilized the Confusion Matrix in which the predicted labels are
shown as columns while the true labels are shown as rows.
Figures 6,7,8 and 9 show the Confusion Matrix from classical
SVM and QSVC models for the CK+, Gun, FER2013, and
Knife datasets, respectively.

VI. C ONCLUSION
TABLE II In this paper, the QSVC-based model is implemented with
C OMPARISON WITH STATE - OF - THE - ART APPROACHES .
the quantum kernel approach and the FidelityQuantumKernel
Model Dataset Accuracy class. For boosting the quantum state preparation for QSVC,
Amplitude Encoding with VQC [5] Synthetic 74.4% we suggest using the DL pre-processing method Resnet152V2.
Amplitude Hybrid [28] Synthetic 97.4%
Hybrid Quantum Feature Selection Algorithm [29] Sonar 74% Our results showed that on the Knife, Gun, CK+, and FER2013
VQC [30] Diabetes 74% datasets, traditional SVM achieved 87%, 83%, 95%, and 83%
Proposed QSVC model CK+ 98% accuracies, whereas QSVC scored 93%, 98%, 98%, and 92%

5
Authorized licensed use limited to: National Institute of Technology Karnataka Surathkal. Downloaded on May 08,2024 at 18:10:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

(a) (b)
Fig. 8. Confusion matrix on the FER2013 dataset with (a) Classical SVM
and (b) QSVC respectively.
(a) (b)
Fig. 9. Confusion matrix on the Knife dataset with (a) Classical SVM and
(b) QSVC respectively.
accuracies respectively. We have implemented quantum ker-
nels using generic unitary transformation with rotation factors
and performed normalization for QSVC to avoid overfitting
and boost scalability. This combination enables QSVC to
perform consistently across a wide range of datasets. QSVM
can outperform traditional kernel techniques in some datasets
that are densely correlated. In order to keep things simple,
studies in this work used low-dimensional data. The results
are compared with state-of-the-art models and the proposed
QSVC model outperformed all other models. One important
topic of future research will be to apply the proposed QSVC
model to higher-dimensional data as well and to determine and
compare speed-ups from quantum vs. traditional techniques.
R EFERENCES
[1] M. Pivoluska and M. Plesch, “Implementation of quantum compression
on IBM quantum computers,” Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-
09881-8.
[2] Djordjevic, Ivan. (2021). Quantum Algorithms and Methods.
10.1016/B978-0-12-821982-9.00006-X.
[3] M. Schuld, I. Sinayskiy, and F. Petruccione, “Quantum com-
puting for pattern classification,” Dec. 2014, [Online]. Available:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.3646
[4] P. v. Zahorodko, S. O. Semerikov, V. N. Soloviev, A. M. Striuk, M. I.
Striuk, and H. M. Shalatska, “Comparisons of performance between
quantum-enhanced and classical machine learning algorithms on the
IBM Quantum Experience,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series,
Mar. 2021, vol. 1840, no. 1. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1840/1/012021.
[5] D. Maheshwari, D. Sierra-Sosa, and B. Garcia-Zapirain, “Varia-
tional Quantum Classifier for Binary Classification: Real vs Synthetic
Dataset,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 3705–3715, 2022, doi: 10.1109/AC-
CESS.2021.3139323.
[6] V. Havlicek et al., “Supervised learning with quantum enhanced feature
spaces,” Apr. 2018, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-0980-2.
[7] P. Rebentrost, M. Mohseni, and S. Lloyd, “Quantum support vector
machine for big data classification,” Phys Rev Lett, vol. 113, no. 3,
Sep. 2014, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.130503.
6
Authorized licensed use limited to: National Institute of Technology Karnataka Surathkal. Downloaded on May 08,2024 at 18:10:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[8] J. Singh, F. Ali, B. Shah, K. S. Bhangu, and D. Kwak, “Emotion
Quantification Using Variational Quantum State Fidelity Estimation,”
IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 115108–115119, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1109/ac-
cess.2022.3216890.
[9] Q. Li, D. Gkoumas, C. Lioma, and M. Melucci, “Quantum-inspired
multimodal fusion for video sentiment analysis,” Information Fusion,
vol. 65, pp. 58–71, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1016/J.INFFUS.2020.08.006.
[10] Y. Zhang et al., “A quantum-inspired multimodal sentiment analysis
framework,” Theor Comput Sci, vol. 752, pp. 21–40, Dec. 2018, doi:
10.1016/J.TCS.2018.04.029.
[11] Q. Li, D. Gkoumas, A. Sordoni, J. Y. Nie, and M. Melucci, “Quantum-
inspired Neural Network for Conversational Emotion Recognition,”
Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 35,
no. 15, pp. 13270–13278, May 2021, doi: 10.1609/AAAI.V35I15.17567.
[12] Tamburini F. Emotion Recognition with a Kernel Quantum Classifier.
Emotion Recognition with a Kernel Quantum Classifier. 2014:120-3.
[13] Galofaro F, Toffano Z, Doan BL. Quantum semantic correlations in hate
and non-hate speeches. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.03275. 2018 Nov 8.
[14] Willsch, Dennis, MaditaWillsch, Hans De Raedt, and Kristel Michielsen.
“Support vector machines on the D-Wave quantum annealer.” Computer
physics communications 248 (2020): 107006.
[15] J.-E. Park, B. Quanz, S. Wood, H. Higgins, and R. Harishankar, “Prac-
tical application improvement to Quantum SVM: theory to practice,”
Dec. 2020, [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.07725
[16] V. Rastunkov et al., “Boosting Method for Automated Feature Space
Discovery in Supervised Quantum Machine Learning Models,” May
2022, [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.12199
[17] S. Gambs, “Quantum classification,” Sep. 2008, [Online]. Available:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.0444
[18] R. Mengoni, M. Incudini, and A. di Pierro, “Facial expression recogni-
tion on a quantum computer,” Quantum Mach Intell, vol. 3, no. 1, pp.
1–11, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1007/S42484-020-00035-5/TABLES/3.
[19] S. Lloyd, “Quantum Machine Learning for Data Classification,” Physics
(College Park Md), vol. 14, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1103/physics.14.79.
[20] I. B. Djordjevic, “Quantum Algorithms and Methods,” in Quantum
Information Processing, Quantum Computing, and Quantum Error Cor-
rection, Elsevier, 2021, pp. 159–192. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-821982-
9.00006-x.
[21] M. Schuld, “Supervised quantum machine learning models
are kernel methods,” Jan. 2021, [Online]. Available:
http://arxiv.org/abs/2101.11020
[22] M. Schuld and F. Petruccione, “Quantum Models as Kernel Methods,”
2021, pp. 217–245. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-83098-4 6.
[23] “FER2013 Dataset — Papers With Code.”
https://paperswithcode.com/dataset/fer2013 (accessed Jan. 12, 2023).
[24] “Category:Gun - Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies,
TV and Video Games.” https://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Category:Gun (ac-
cessed Jan. 12, 2023).
[25] “Knife Dataset — Kaggle.” https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/shank885/knife-
dataset (accessed Jan. 13, 2023).
[26] P. Lucey, J. F. Cohn, T. Kanade, J. Saragih, Z. Ambadar and I.
Matthews, ”The Extended Cohn-Kanade Dataset (CK+): A complete
dataset for action unit and emotion-specified expression,” 2010 IEEE
Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog-
nition - Workshops, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2010, pp. 94-101, doi:
10.1109/CVPRW.2010.5543262.
[27] K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Identity Mappings
in Deep Residual Networks,” Mar. 2016, [Online]. Available:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.05027
[28] D. Sierra-Sosa, M. Telahun, and A. Elmaghraby, “TensorFlow Quantum:
Impacts of Quantum State Preparation on Quantum Machine Learning
Performance,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 215246–215255, 2020, doi:
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3040798.
[29] S. Chakraborty, S. H. Shaikh, A. Chakrabarti, and R. Ghosh, “A hybrid
quantum feature selection algorithm using a quantum inspired graph
theoretic approach,” Applied Intelligence, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 1775–1793,
Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10489-019-01604-3.
[30] H. Gupta, H. Varshney, T. K. Sharma, N. Pachauri, and O. P. Verma,
“Comparative performance analysis of quantum machine learning with
deep learning for diabetes prediction,” Complex and Intelligent Systems,
vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 3073–3087, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s40747-021-
00398-7.