% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Delilbasic:1018738,
author = {Delilbasic, Amer and Le Saux, Bertrand and Riedel, Morris
and Michielsen, Kristel and Cavallaro, Gabriele},
title = {{A} {S}ingle-{S}tep {M}ulticlass {SVM} {B}ased on {Q}uantum
{A}nnealing for {R}emote {S}ensing {D}ata {C}lassification},
journal = {IEEE journal of selected topics in applied earth
observations and remote sensing},
volume = {17},
issn = {1939-1404},
address = {New York, NY},
publisher = {IEEE},
reportid = {FZJ-2023-05019},
pages = {1434 - 1445},
year = {2024},
abstract = {In recent years, the development of quantum annealers has
enabled experimental demonstrations and has increased
research interest in applications of quantum annealing, such
as in quantum machine learning and in particular for the
popular quantum Support Vector Machine (SVM). Several
versions of the quantum SVM have been proposed, and quantum
annealing has been shown to be effective in them. Extensions
to multiclass problems have also been made, which consist of
an ensemble of multiple binary classifiers. This work
proposes a novel quantum SVM formulation for direct
multiclass classification based on quantum annealing, called
Quantum Multiclass SVM (QMSVM). The multiclass
classification problem is formulated as a single quadratic
unconstrained binary optimization problem solved with
quantum annealing. The main objective of this work is to
evaluate the feasibility, accuracy, and time performance of
this approach. Experiments have been performed on the D-Wave
Advantage quantum annealer for a classification problem on
remote sensing data. Results indicate that, despite the
memory demands of the quantum annealer, QMSVM can achieve an
accuracy that is comparable to standard SVM methods, such as
the one-versus-one (OVO), depending on the dataset (compared
to OVO: 0.8663 vs 0.8598 on Toulouse, 0.8123 vs 0.8521 on
Potsdam). More importantly, it scales much more efficiently
with the number of training examples, resulting in nearly
constant time (compared to OVO: 85.72s vs 248.02s on
Toulouse, 58.89s vs 580.17s on Potsdam). This work shows an
approach for bringing together classical and quantum
computation, solving practical problems in remote sensing
with current hardware.},
cin = {JSC},
ddc = {520},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)JSC-20090406},
pnm = {5111 - Domain-Specific Simulation $\&$ Data Life Cycle Labs
(SDLs) and Research Groups (POF4-511) / 5112 - Cross-Domain
Algorithms, Tools, Methods Labs (ATMLs) and Research Groups
(POF4-511) / RAISE - Research on AI- and Simulation-Based
Engineering at Exascale (951733) / EUROCC-2 (DEA02266)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5111 / G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5112 /
G:(EU-Grant)951733 / G:(DE-Juel-1)DEA02266},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:001127459900006},
doi = {10.1109/JSTARS.2023.3336926},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1018738},
}