
We use a classical SVM pipeline to solve multi-class classification problem. The model seeks a set of separating hyperplanes in feature space, \mathbf{w}^\top \phi(\mathbf{x}) + b = 0 , maximizing the geometric margin between classes. When linear separation is difficult, we map data to a higher-dimensional space and apply the kernel trick: instead of building \phi(\cdot) explicitly, we compute inner products k(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}')=\langle \phi(\mathbf{x}), \phi(\mathbf{x}')\rangle , which lets the SVM operate implicitly in a Hilbert space \mathcal{H}.
Quantum SVM is implemented using a quantum kernel, where input \mathbf{x} is encoded into a quantum state |\phi(\mathbf{x})\rangle=U(\mathbf{x})|0\rangle^{\otimes n} and using the state overlap (inner product or fidelity) as k(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}'). The circuit induces a (potentially very high-dimensional) nonlinear embedding through data-dependent single-qubit rotations and entangling gates; the choice of encoding and entanglement pattern governs which higher-order interactions are represented. These overlaps are estimated by running U(\mathbf{x}')^\dagger U(\mathbf{x}) on quantum hardware; the resulting Gram matrix feeds directly into the standard SVM pipeline.
Task: An industrial quality-control dataset with features describing geometric/photometric properties of steel surfaces (1,941 samples, 27 features; 7 classes). Classification task is to assign each sample to its defect type: Pastry, Z_Scratch, K_Scratch, Stains, Dirtiness, Bumps, Other_Faults.
Execution
Simulator
Number of qubits
4
Number of layers
2
63%
Accuracy
75%
Balanced Accuracy
0.62
Macro F1
The QSVM model potentially speeds up detection of surface-defect types. In production, earlier and more consistent defect identification reduces scrap/rework and shortens engineer reviews.
Annual projected savings from reduced reviews/scrap and faster throughput.
Return on investment based on value add vs. TCO.
Efficiency gains vs. baseline review/inspection workflows.
Simple and transparent: from your brief to quantum results, code, and a paper
Map your problem to the right quantum use case
Confirm the quantum-classical hybrid approach and key assumptions
Download ready-to-run code; execute on simulator
Review reproducible results, iterate as needed
Compare against classical baseline; prepare for quantum hardware
Algorithms, applied use cases and benchmarks connected to this page
Algorithms
Build and benchmark quantum support vector machine pipelines with quantum kernels, classical SVM baselines, and reproducible machine learning workflows.
Manufacturing
Detect additive manufacturing anomalies and classify melt-pool defect shapes with QSVM, reproducible benchmarks, and a classical baseline comparison.
Comparisons
Compare QSVM with classical SVM on a 569-sample breast-cancer benchmark with 30 FNA features, 4 qubits, 2 layers, 96% accuracy, and 0.99 ROC-AUC.
Manufacturing
Predictive maintenance and hydraulic condition monitoring with HQNN, real accuracy vs. classical baselines, and executable code.
Run your first industrial task with QSVM and get transparent results within a clear report.
Try your first case for free