Do Quantum Transformers Help? A Systematic VQC Architecture Comparison on Tabular Benchmarks

Variational quantum circuits (VQCs) are parameterized quantum circuits optimized classically. We propose a hybrid variational quantum circuit (HVQC) extending VQCs with a classical affine post-measurement layer, enabling vector-valued regression without the linear overhead of independent scalar circuits. Theoretically, we show that elementary one-and two-qubit circuits can approximate quadratic functions and products via data re-uploading and entanglement, providing the foundations of the full architecture. Experimentally, on two synthetic image reconstruction datasets and the Friedman1 benchmark (40,568 test samples), our HVQC matches Gaussian Process Regression and outperforms XGBoost and Random Forest. An ablation study confirms that both quantum and classical components are essential, and results highlight the central role of the feature map in hybrid quantum-classical models.

Quaternion-valued neural networks and variational quantum circuits (VQCs) both derive local transformations from $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ geometry, yet their performance on classical supervised learning remains poorly understood. We compare real-valued, quaternion-valued, and quantum classification heads on identical frozen features across MNIST, FashionMNIST, and CIFAR-10. CIFAR-10 uses a learned 16-dimensional bottleneck and frozen ImageNet-pretrained ResNet18 features to separate architecture from representation quality. Quaternion classifiers match or approach real-valued baselines while outperforming shallow VQCs. On MNIST and FashionMNIST, quaternion networks nearly equal real-valued MLPs, whereas product-state VQCs show lower accuracy and higher cost. On CIFAR-10, quaternion networks retain 94--97% of real-valued performance and remain stable under a 32-fold increase in dimensionality. Product-state circuits underperform quaternion classifiers, while entanglement gives modest grayscale gains but reverses under pretrained CNN features (9.25 pp degradation vs.\ product-state). Fubini--Study/QFI natural gradients improve geometric alignment but not short-horizon loss reduction vs.\ Adam. A Friedman test on five-seed MNIST detects model differences ($χ^2=12.796$, $p=0.0051$, $n=5$), with Wilcoxon tests yielding large effect sizes ($d>5$) for QuatNet vs.\ quantum comparisons. For FashionMNIST and CIFAR-10, large effects ($d>2.0$) are the primary statistic given $n=3$. These results indicate that quaternion networks provide efficient, stable $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ alternatives to shallow VQCs on tasks lacking intrinsic quantum structure. Shared local $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ geometry and shallow entanglement are insufficient, within the regime studied, to confer practical quantum advantage. Conclusions are limited to shallow, measurement-limited circuits on such tasks.

A recurring weakness in quantum machine learning (QML) is that reported ``quantum advantages'' are seldom tested against a \emph{capacity-matched} classical control, leaving it unclear whether a gain comes from the quantum substrate or from the architectural change that accompanies it. Our primary contribution is methodological: a protocol for attributing such gains honestly -- a capacity-matched classical bottleneck of identical parameter budget, transparent reporting of where quantum does \emph{not} help, and validation on real quantum hardware -- which we develop and apply through a concrete case study. That case study is Quantum Adaptive Self-Attention (QASA), a hybrid Transformer that replaces the value projection of a \emph{single} encoder layer with a 36-parameter parameterized quantum circuit (PQC), keeping all other layers classical. Across nine synthetic benchmarks and the real-world ETTh1 dataset, QASA improves on a full-capacity classical Transformer for chaotic and trend-dominated signals. To ask whether this is a genuinely \emph{quantum} effect, we introduce a control rarely applied in quantum machine learning -- a capacity-matched classical bottleneck with the same parameter budget -- and find that it matches the PQC on the error metrics. The gain is therefore attributable to the low-rank value-projection \emph{bottleneck} (an \emph{architectural parsimony} principle), not to quantumness; adding further quantum layers only degrades performance and trainability. We accordingly position the quantum layer not as a source of accuracy advantage but as a \emph{competitive} instantiation of this principle: its low-rank compression onto the signal's intrinsic dimensionality is matched by a classical bottleneck, so the gain is architectural rather than quantum.