Advantages of quantum support vector machine in cross-domain classification of quantum states

Abstract

In this study, we use cross-domain classification using quantum machine learning for quantum advantages to address the entanglement versus separability paradigm. We further demonstrate the efficient classification of Bell diagonal states into zero and non-zero discord classes. The inherited structure of quantum states and its relation with a particular class of quantum states are exploited to intuitively approach the classification of different domain testing states, referred here as cross-domain classification. In addition, we extend our analysis to evaluate the robustness of our model for the analyzed problem using random unitary transformations. Using numerical analysis, our results clearly demonstrate the potential of QSVM for classifying quantum states across the multi-dimensional Hilbert space.

I Introduction

The entangled quantum states are known for the non-local correlations, defying the notion of classical mechanics confined by locality, and serve as the foundational block in quantum protocols like teleportation [1, 2, 3, 4], dense coding [5, 6], and secure key distribution [7, 8]. Apart from the quantum protocols, entangled states are also utilized in quantum networking [9, 10], quantum machine learning (QML) [11, 12, 13], quantum finance [14, 15, 16], and variational quantum eigensolvers (VQE) [17, 18, 19].

In general, quantum states are categorized or classified into entangled and separable classes. With enlarging quantum system size, the potential classes for quantum state classification also increase. For example, bipartite or two-qubit quantum states are typically classified into two potential classes, while this classification expands to five classes for the three-qubit scenario. Therefore, despite being a crucial and advantageous property of quantum computing, entanglement detection, identification, and classification tasks are extremely hard with the increasing number of sub-systems or qubits in the context of quantum information.

To address the entanglement versus separability paradigm, entanglement classification is approached by machine learning algorithms as a pattern recognition task. In one such attempt, Harney et al. demonstrated the use of artificial neural networks and reinforcement learning to classify multi-qubit pure quantum states [20]. Asif et al. also demonstrated the use of artificial neural network with multiple Bell-type inequalities for relative entropy of coherence for detecting quantum states as separable or entangled states [21]. In addition to artificial neural networks for the entanglement classification, [22] used support vector machine learning algorithms and entanglement witness operators to facilitate the classification of four-qubit arbitrary pure states. In [23], authors show the efficacy of machine learning tools with bagging-based models to design an entanglement classifier using a convex hull of separable states. Moreover, the model also employs prior knowledge about the states, which further assists in classifying the states as separable or entangled. For an effective classification, machine learning algorithms require a large dataset for training and subsequently use a subset of the original dataset for testing. As the number of qubits increases in a quantum state, the dimensions of the density matrix- representing the features- increase exponentially, in accordance with the associated Hilbert space. For example, a density operator representing an $n$-qubit quantum state is associated with $2^{n}$ basis states and $2^{n}\times 2^{n}$ features in the realms of classical machine learning. Evidently, to accurately classify the test states, classical machine learning algorithms require a large dataset spanning a complete vector or Hilbert space, consequently increasing the computational training time with increasing size of the system or increasing number of qubits.

(a) A. Visualization of the Werner type states

(b) B. Randomly generated Bell diagonal states

Figure 1: Geometrical representation of training and testing two-qubit Werner states; the four corners represent Bell states such that (-1,-1,-1), (-1,1,1), (1,-1,1), and (1,1,-1) represent $\ket{\psi_{-}}$, $\ket{\phi_{-}}$, $\ket{\phi_{+}}$, and $\ket{\psi_{+}}$, respectively. A) The line joining from the center to the vertex represents one of the Werner states, and the part of the line confined in the octahedron depicts a separable class of quantum states. B) the octahedron confined in a tetrahedron contains all separable Bell diagonal states, and the inside edges (red and green lines) show zero discord states. Other than these, all states are non-zero discord states.

In this article, we readdress the entanglement versus separability paradigm using quantum machine learning algorithms and cross-domain classification where, as per the conventional methods, the realms of testing and training datasets are always different [24, 25]. For this, we use one set of states as a training set in a specific Hilbert space to effectively classify a different set of quantum states in a different Hilbert space- cross-domain classification. Our approach uses the inherent mathematical structure of quantum states as the basis for the optimal classification. Considering that we train the algorithm on one set of states only and classify different types of states, our analysis further facilitates reducing the size of training set. Our algorithm further exploits the essence of similar entanglement and separability properties of testing and training states, which conventional machine learning methods do not recognize otherwise.

To understand this, let us consider a density matrix constructed by map** the values $x_{i}$ using a function $f(x_{i})$, where $x_{i}$ can be thought of as polarization vector or correlation matrix elements. The resultant density matrix can be used for the machine learning algorithm, where elements of the matrix are features. Depending on the values of $x_{i}$, different matrices can be generated for training and testing. Considering the inherent mathematical structure in quantum states, the trained localized model on a certain interval range must be able to make predictions for entire ranges of $x_{i}$. In addition, the algorithm should be capable of identifying the inherent map** and its connection with a given class. For example, the class of Bell diagonal states [26] depends on values of correlation matrix elements (see Eq.(11))- the visualization of Bell diagonal states can be attempted by plotting correlation elements. For our purpose, by restricting the range of correlation matrix elements to half instead of the entire range from 1 to -1, we generate and demonstrate the data for cross-domain learning in Fig. 1. We use the mathematical structure and properties of these states to identify entanglement and nonclassical correlations in different classes of mixed states through cross-domain classification.

Using the above strategy, we demonstrate a quantum machine learning algorithm, in particular, a quantum support vector machine (QSVM) using a fully entangled ZZ+UC-gates-based circuit [13], that employs the benefits of recognizing patterns in quantum states more readily than classical machine learning algorithms. We first utilize the model for classifying two-qubit mixed states into separable and entangled classes and then present the analysis for training the QSVM on one type of Werner states $(\rho_{\ket{\psi_{-}}})$ and subsequently test the trained model with another type of Werner states $(\rho_{\ket{\psi_{+}}}),(\rho_{\ket{\phi_{-}}})$ and $(\rho_{\ket{\phi_{+}}})$ [27]. Clearly, the test set belongs to one part of the Hilbert state and the testing set belongs to completely different part of the Hilbert space as demonstrated in Fig. 1. For a detailed analysis, we further use the our trained model to classify Horodecki and maximally entangled mixed states (MEMS) [28, 29, 30, 31]. Our results demonstrate that the model can accurately predict testing states with a significant prediction probability difference between the separable and entangled states. We also evaluate our algorithm based on different evaluation metrics, i.e., accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score, and show that the model performs exceedingly well on all evaluation criteria. In addition, we thoroughly evaluate our model by performing random unitary operations on Werner states to understand its robustness and observe similar performance. For analyzing the nonclassical correlations, we further analyze the proposed QSVM model in identifying the zero and noon-zero discord states with a high success probability. Our model detects quantum correlations in different types of Werner states and classifies them as non-zero or zero discord states with outstanding accuracy. For a comparative analysis, we evaluate the CSVM and artificial neural network with the same strategies and observe that for cross-domain classification, the classical models predict each state of the testing set as separable states.

II Preliminaries

In this section, we present a brief overview of necessary concepts such as entanglement and quantum correlation measures for identifying the entangled and separable classes. The section also gives an introduction to the quantum machine learning algorithm, QSVM, used in this study.

II.1 Entanglement and quantum correlation measures

One of the most fundamental and promising quantifiers of the degree of entanglement in two-qubit systems is concurrence [32]. The concurrence of a two-qubit quantum state $\rho$ is defined as:

$$C(\rho)=max\{0,\lambda_{1}-\lambda_{2}-\lambda_{3}-\lambda_{4}\},$$ (1)

where $\lambda_{i}^{\prime}s$ are square roots of eigenvalues of the matrix $\rho\tilde{\rho}$ such that $\tilde{\rho}=(\sigma_{y}\otimes\sigma_{y})\rho^{*}(\sigma_{y}\otimes\sigma_{y})$, and $\rho^{*}$ is complex conjugate of the state $\rho$. Similarly, geometrical discord- a signature of quantumness of correlations- can be used to detect nonclassical correlations in two-qubit states [33]. For a general two-qubit state represented as

$$\rho=\frac{1}{4}(I\otimes I+\sum_{i=1}^{3}a_{i}\sigma_{i}\otimes I+\sum_{j=1}^{3}b_{j}I\otimes\sigma_{j}+\sum_{i,j=1}^{3}t_{ij}\sigma_{i}\otimes\sigma_{j}),$$ (2)

where $a_{i}=tr(\rho(\sigma_{i}\otimes I))$ and $b_{j}=tr(\rho(I\otimes\sigma_{j}))$ are individual polarization vectors and $t_{ij}=tr(\rho(\sigma_{i}\otimes\sigma_{j}))$ are elements of a correlation matrix, the geometrical discord is defined as

$$D_{G}(\rho)=\frac{1}{4}(||\vec{a}||^{2}+||T||-\lambda_{max}),$$ (3)

Here $\vec{a}$ is a column vector whose elements are $a_{i}$, $T$ is correlation matrix with $t_{ij}$ as elements, and $\lambda_{max}$ is a largest eigenvalue of matrix $k=\vec{a}\vec{a}^{T}+TT^{T}$. For the case of Bell diagonal states, this expression gets simplified to

$$D_{G}(\rho_{BD})=\frac{1}{4}(t_{11}^{2}+t_{22}^{2}+t_{33}^{2}-\max{\{t_{11}^{2},t_{22}^{2},t_{33}^{2}\}}).$$ (4)

II.2 Quantum Support Vector Machine

Quantum support vector machine is a mathematical variant of a classical support vector machine that embodies a hybrid quantum-classical approach. The classical support vector machine is based on a quadratic constrained problem, where the algorithm tries to maximize the distance between the hyperplane, drawn on the edges of different datasets belonging to different classes, while satisfying the constraints [34], given as

$$L=min(\frac{1}{2}||w||^{2})-\left(\sum_{i=1}^{d}y_{i}\alpha_{i}K(\vec{x_{i}},\vec{x_{j}})+b\right),$$ (5)

where $x_{i}$ is the support vector, $w$ is normal to hyperplane, $b$ is offset, $y_{i}$ is the label of support vector which is $y_{i}\in\{-1,1\}$ and $K(\vec{x_{i}},\vec{x_{j}})$ is a kernel matrix in between two vectors. Classically, the kernel matrix is known as a Gram matrix, whose entries are computed using a dot product between a pair of vectors. Quantum mechanically, the kernel can be simply computed using the inner product or SWAP test [35] between two different quantum states [36] such that

$$K(\vec{x_{i}},\vec{x_{j}})=\absolutevalue{\bra{\psi_{\vec{x_{i}}}}\ket{\psi_{\vec{x_{j}}}}}^{2}=tr(\rho_{(x_{i})},\rho_{(x_{j})}),$$ (6)

where $\vec{x_{i}},\vec{x_{j}}$ $\in$ dataset. To compute the SWAP test using a quantum circuit, $\absolutevalue{\bra{\psi_{\vec{x_{i}}}}\ket{\psi_{\vec{x_{j}}}}}^{2}$ can be further defined as

$$\absolutevalue{\bra{\psi_{\vec{x_{i}}}}\ket{\psi_{\vec{x_{j}}}}}^{2}=\absolutevalue{\bra{0^{n}}\mathcal{U}^{\dagger}_{\psi(\vec{x_{i}})}\mathcal{U}_{\psi({\vec{x_{j}}})}\ket{0^{n}}}^{2}.$$ (7)

From Eq.(7), it becomes evident that kernel values can be feasibly computed using quantum circuits through the evolution of the initial state $\ket{0}$ under the influence of a unitary operator $\mathcal{U}_{\psi(x)}$ and then finally measuring the state in the computational basis. In this study, we use fidelity quantum kernels [37]. Finally, the computed kernel value is passed to the classical support vector machine (CSVM) for classification.

III Framework

With the representation of Bell diagonal states [28, 26] as represented in Fig. 1- more specifically the Werner states- our intent is to test our algorithm on one type of the Werner states and subsequently test it on other types of Werner states, not used during the training. For a comprehensive cross-domain classification to assess the versatility of the trained algorithms on Werner-type states, we also analyze the entanglement versus separability problem in Horodecki, maximally entangled mixed states (MEMS), states generated using random unitary transformations. For the quantumness of correlations, we analyze our model for predicting nonclassical correlations present in the Bell diagonal states using geometric discord.

III.1 Generating dataset

We now proceed to use quantum machine learning to address the challenges of quantum state classification in two-qubit mixed states using cross-domain classification. In order to facilitate the discussions on the results obtained, in this section, we first describe the generation of generalized two-qubit quantum states with their corresponding labels. The dataset is generated using the generalized two-qubit density matrix, represented in Eq.(2), where $a_{i}$ and $b_{j}$ are individual polarization vectors and $t_{ij}$ are elements of a correlation matrix- varying the polarization vector and correlation matrix elements, the Werner, Horodecki, and MEMS states are generated.

For example, the class of Werner states are two-qubit mixed states of the following form

$$\rho_{\ket{\psi}}=p\ket{\psi}\bra{\psi}+\frac{(1-p)}{4}I,$$ (8)

where, $\ket{\psi}$ represents one of the Bell states given as $\ket{\psi_{\pm}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\ket{00}\pm\ket{11}$ or $\ket{\phi_{\pm}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\ket{01}\pm\ket{10}$ and $p$ represents the probability. For $p>\frac{1}{3}$, Werner states are entangled and for $p\leq\frac{1}{3}$, Werner states are separable. The four types of Werner states are represented in Fig. 1A, where the straight lines, starting from the center of the cube and ending at the edge of the tetrahedron, represent a type of Werner state resulting from a particular Bell state. The states lying inside the octahedron belong to the separable class of Werner states, i.e., for $p\leq\frac{1}{3}$.

The Horodecki class of states are entangled for $p>0$, and are expressed as

$$\rho_{H}=p\ket{\psi}\bra{\psi}+(1-p)\ket{00}\bra{00},$$ (9)

where, $\ket{\psi}$ is one of the Bell states, and $p$ represents probability. Similarly, the MEMS states are a mixture of Bell states and mixed diagonal states [30]. The form of MEMS is as follows

$$\rho_{MEMS}=\begin{pmatrix}q+\frac{\lambda}{2}&0&0&\frac{\lambda}{2}\\ 0&s&0&0\\ 0&0&t&0\\ \frac{\lambda}{2}&0&0&r+\frac{\lambda}{2}\end{pmatrix},$$ (10)

where q, r, s,t and $\lambda$ are positive real state parameters and satisfy the condition (q + r + $\lambda$ + s + t)=1.

In order to characterize states as zero discord or non-zero discord states using our model in cross-domain classification regime, we further generate random Bell diagonal states of the form

$$\rho_{BD}=\frac{1}{4}(I\otimes I+\sum_{i=1}^{3}t_{ii}\sigma_{i}\otimes\sigma_{i}),$$ (11)

where $t_{ii}$ ranges from -1 to 1. The density matrix being a positive operator, required necessary constraints on $t_{ii}$s, such that

$$1-t_{11}+t_{22}+t_{33} \geq 0, 1+t_{11}-t_{22}+t_{33} \geq 0,$$

$$1+t_{11}+t_{22}-t_{33} \geq 0, 1-t_{11}-t_{22}-t_{33} \geq 0.$$

For classification, states with zero discord constitutes one of the classes and states with non-zero discord constitute the other class. We generate the cross-domain dataset by restricting the range of $t_{ii}$ from -1 to 0 for training purposes and from 0 to 1 for testing the dataset. Fig. 1B further demonstrates the difference in the domain of the generated training and testing dataset as discussed above.

III.2 Random unitary operations on generated dataset

For a comprehensive analysis to test the robustness of our model, we extend our approach by generating a collection of random unitary operators to map Werner states to their local unitary transformed forms. The generation of local unitary equivalents of Werner states is accomplished by applying a generalized unitary matrix, given as

$$U(\theta)=\begin{pmatrix}\cos{\theta}&-\sin{\theta}\\ \sin{\theta}&\cos{\theta}\end{pmatrix}.$$ (12)

To generate the required data for a two-qubit state, we consider a local unitary transformation using the tensor product ($U(\theta_{1})\otimes U(\theta_{2})$). The required range of theta is generated randomly using the Python random module from NumPy [38].

Figure 2: A quantum circuit used in QSVM.

Figure 3: A flow chart representing the in-domain method where we train the models (quantum and classical support vector machine) on 75% of the whole generated datasets and test on 25%.

Figure 4: Comparison of quantum and classical support vector machine on all four evaluation metrics (accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score) for super-set of a dataset containing Werner type states, Horodecki, and MEMS states.

Figure 5: It demonstrates the cross-domain classification method where we train the QSVM on $\rho_{\ket{\psi_{-}}}$ and test on $\rho_{\ket{\psi_{+}}}$, $\rho_{\ket{\phi_{-}}}$, $\rho_{\ket{\phi_{+}}}$, Horodecki and MEMS states.

Figure 6: As per this method, we train the models on $\rho_{\ket{\psi_{-}}}$ and test on unitary transformation of other states such as $U\rho_{\ket{\psi_{+}}}U^{\dagger}$,$U\rho_{\ket{\phi_{-}}}U^{\dagger}$ and $U\rho_{\ket{\phi_{+}}}U^{\dagger}$ and similarly for other combinations.

IV Analytical Results

In this section, we analyze the effects of utilizing the quantum support vector machine (using IBM quantum services [39]) in comparison to the classical support vector machine (using sklearn library [40]) for cross-domain classification of two-qubit mixed states. In the case of QSVM, we use a quantum circuit to compute the distance between quantum states. The mathematical form of the circuit is given as

$$\mathcal{U}_{\phi(\vec{x_{i}})}=exp\left(\sum_{j=0}^{d-1}\sum_{j^{{}^{\prime}}=j+1}^{d-1}Z_{j}Z_{j^{{}^{\prime}}}\phi(x_{j})\phi(x_{j^{{}^{\prime}}})+\sum_{j=0}^{d-1}UC_{j}\phi(x_{j})\right)$$ (13)

As per the above equation, the circuit consists of ZZ and UC gates, where the UC gate is a combination of $R_{x}$ and $R_{y}$ gates, and $\phi(x_{j})$ and $\phi(x_{j^{{}^{\prime}}})$ are the elements of the generated density matrices. These specific gates for the circuit are chosen after performing an optimization and in comparison to other circuits such as instantaneous quantum polynomial (IQP) and Hamiltonian circuits [36, 41]. Fig. 2 shows the circuit used for implementation of QSVM. For CSVM, we optimize the model on the basis of linear and non-linear kernels in addition to gamma which varies from 1e-2 to 1e-4, and C which varies from 1 to 1000.

As per the conventional methods of in-domain classification, we first train the quantum and classical models with $75$$\%$ of the whole dataset and test the models on the rest $25\%$ of the data as represented in Fig. 3. Fig. 4 demonstrates the classification efficiency of the models in terms of accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score. Our results indicate an accuracy of $97.72\%$ using QSVM in comparison to the accuracy of $77.27\%$ as obtained using CSVM. Moreover, the precision value for CSVM is only $39\%$, indicating that a significant number of states are predicted as false positive, i.e., false entangled states instead of separable states. However, the recall value for the classical model is relatively better than the precision value, specifying that the predicted false negative or false separable states are lesser in number. These observations clearly indicate that the CSVM exhibits type-I error. On the other hand, our QSVM model shows significant results in accuracy as well as other evaluation metrics (precision, recall, and F1-score). The results indicate that QSVM is more reliable when classifying the quantum states as entangled or separable.

To comprehensively analyze the models from cross-domain classification, we proceed strategically to address the entanglement versus separability paradigm in the following subsections.

IV.1 Cross-domain classification using QSVM

In this subsection, we proceed to analyze the efficacy of proposed QSVM for cross-domain classification for characterizing entangled and separable states which are spatially different from the training states in the Hilbert space. For this, we utilize the Werner states depicted in Fig. 1A. We inquisitively train the QSVM on a single type of Werner state ($\rho_{\ket{\psi_{-}}}$) and subsequently test the trained model with different Werner states ($\rho_{\ket{\psi_{+}}}$, $\rho_{\ket{\phi_{-}}}$ and $\rho_{\ket{\phi_{+}}}$), as shown in Fig. 5.

(a) A. Prediction by the model on Werner type states, Horodecki and MEMS states, trained on $\rho_{\ket{\psi_{-}}}$

(b) B. Prediction by the model on random unitary transformation of Werner states

Figure 7: The analysis of quantum support vector machine. In 2A-I, 2A-II and 2A-III, the model is trained on $\rho_{\ket{\psi_{-}}}$ and tested on $\rho_{\ket{\psi_{+}}}$, $\rho_{\ket{\phi_{-}}}$, and $\rho_{\ket{\phi_{+}}}$, respectively on basis of prediction probability corresponding to each testing quantum states. 2A-IV includes the analysis of Werner states along with Horodecki and MEMS states based on evaluation metrics. B) Accuracy-based analysis of quantum support vector machine for unitary transformation of Werner states.

Fig. 7A clearly demonstrates the advantages of using QSVM for classifying the Werner, Horodecki, and MEMS states in entangled or separable. For example, Figs. 7A- I, II and III represent the QSVM predictions corresponding to $\rho_{\ket{\psi_{+}}}$, $\rho_{\ket{\phi_{-}}}$ and $\rho_{\ket{\phi_{+}}}$, respectively when the model is trained using a Hilbert space occupied by the $\rho_{\ket{\psi_{-}}}$ states. The mentioned figures illustrate that if a state originates as separable, the prediction probability associated with the red line (indicating separable states) needs to be considerably higher compared to the green line (indicating entangled states). Further, the actual class of a particular quantum state can be observed by the blue line (indicating actual class). Therefore, Fig. 7A-I shows the prediction probability corresponding to individual quantum states belonging to $\rho_{\ket{\psi_{+}}}$. The figures corresponding to $\rho_{\ket{\phi_{-}}}$ and $\rho_{\ket{\phi_{+}}}$ also represent similar predictions. Our results show that the proposed model can predict the separable and entangled states with a significant probability. The same can be inferred from plots of evaluation metrics, i.e., accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score as represented in Fig. 7A-IV. Hence, QSVM successfully performs the cross-domain classification to address the entanglement versus separability problem.

For a comprehensive analysis of two-qubit quantum states under cross-domain classification strategy, we further evaluate our models on Horodecki and MEMS states while training the model on the Werner state ($\rho_{\ket{\psi_{-}}}$). Fig. 7B illustrates the result of predicting the Horodecki and MEMS states as entangled or separable using QSVM. Interestingly, for Horodecki states, QSVM shows a $100\%$ accuracy. For MEMS states, the quantum support vector machine shows a moderate accuracy compared to Wener and Horodecki states. This can be attributed to the significant difference between the $\rho_{\ket{\psi_{-}}}$ state and MEMS states. Nevertheless, the accuracy is still significant for the cross-domain classification.

(a) A. Results of cross-domain classification on Bell diagonal states

(b) B. Predictions corresponding to Werner states, trained on Bell diagonal states ($-1<t_{ii}<0$)

Figure 8: As per the data represented in Fig. 1B for cross-domain classification here in A) demonstrates the classification results where the blue line represents the actual categorization of zero and non-zero discord states and red and green lines represent the prediction probability corresponding to both of the categories. B) shows the classification results based on evaluation metrics of Werner states.

IV.2 Analysing robustness of QSVM

In order to further ascertain the predictive capacity of the QSVM on Werner states, we introduce variability for testing the trained model by evaluating it on Werner states transformed by local unitary operations. Fig. 6 is a schematic representation of our analysis in this section, and Fig. 7B represents the accuracy corresponding to different Werner-type states. Our analysis reveals that the model consistently achieves superior accuracy in predicting entangled and separable states, even in the case of random unitary transformations. This analysis precisely assesses the capability of QSVM for cross-domain classification of quantum states. For further comparison, one may compare Figs. 7A and 7B.

V Analysing quantum correlation using QSVM

In this section, we evaluate our QSVM model for predicting quantum correlations existing between qubits in two-qubit mixed quantum states. As demonstrated in section III.1, the training and testing states are generated by restricting the range of $t_{ij}$ from Eq.(11). For training the model, we choose the states where $t_{ii}$ ranges from -1 to 0; and for testing, we choose $t_{ii}$ range from 0 to 1. Fig. 8A demonstrates the analysis in terms of prediction probability corresponding to individual testing quantum states. It can be analyzed that the quantum states are classified into zero discord and non-zero discord states with a notable probability difference.

As an extensive study, we further analyze Werner states by generating the corresponding category as non-zero discord states, where $t_{ii}$ with a range from -1 to 0 are chosen as training states. The results are represented in Fig. 8B. One can clearly be observe that the accuracy for classifying the Werner states as non-zero discord states has increased with a significant difference as compared to Fig. 7A.

VI Analysis of classical machine learning models

For cross-domain classification (Fig. 5) for quantum states, we also evaluate the prediction capability of classical machine learning algorithms- classical support vector machine (CSVM) and artificial neural networks (ANN). In the case of CSVM, we observe that the classification of Werner states as entangled or separable states resulted in poor accuracy. The model predicts each testing state as separable with the linear or non-linear kernel with optimized C and gamma parameters. Along similar lines, ANN also predicts all of the testing quantum states as separable, with a loss of 0.044 on the training dataset. The predictions for the testing dataset using ANN remains the same even with increasing epochs and the number of neurons in the hidden layer. A summary of ANN results corresponding to the number of neurons in hidden layers and the sample size are shown in Table 1. The same behavior of CSVM and ANN is observed for the case of zero and non-zero discord states classification.

Sample Size	$N_{h}=0$	$N_{h}=50$	$N_{h}=100$
$5*10^{3}$	Predicted as all separable states	Predicted as all separable states	Predicted as all separable states
$5*10^{4}$	Predicted as all separable states	Predicted as all separable states	Predicted as all separable states

Table 1: Analysis of ANN with increased number of neurons in the hidden layer ($N_{h}$) and sample size.

VII Conclusion

This study delved into the efficacy of employing a quantum support vector machine (QSVM) to classify two-qubit mixed states. By tap** into the inherent structure within quantum states of the same family, we aimed to streamline the task of entanglement detection, identification, or classification. We emphasized on an efficient technique called cross-domain classification to classify the unknown quantum states. One can envision the distinct domains of both training and testing states through the geometrical representation used in this study. To validate our approach, we conducted experiments across various scenarios. Initially, we trained our QSVM model on one variant of Werner states ($\rho_{\ket{\psi_{-}}}$), and then tested it on different types of Werner states ($\rho_{\ket{\psi_{+}}}$, $\rho_{\ket{\phi_{+}}}$, and $\rho_{\ket{\phi_{-}}}$). Additionally, we included Horodecki and MEMS states in our testing dataset to comprehensively evaluate cross-domain classification capabilities of our model. Our results indicate that the model effectively and accurately predicted entangled and separable states. Furthermore, applying random unitary transformations to quantum states yielded similar accuracy, reinforcing the robustness of our approach. We extended our cross-domain classification method to further classify zero and non-zero discord states, where we restricted the range of correlation matrix elements for creating the training and testing states. We also used the same training states for analyzing Werner states as non-zero discord states. We conclusively demonstrated that the QSVM can detect entanglement and quantum correlation even with cross-domain classification which is not the case with CSVM and ANN.

We found that the introduction of cross-domain classification in entanglement detection problems reduces the training states, making the quantum machine learning algorithms more efficient. This reduction in training data not only aids in computational efficiency but also contributes to shorter computing times, making the approach more practical and scalable.

VIII Data Availbility

The data set involving quantum states of two and three-qubit different classes is generated using Quantum Toolbox in Python (QuTiP) [42, 43]. The data is available in the GitHub repository.