Benchmarking Quantum Machine Learning for Power-System Attack Detection: Evaluation Choices Decide the Outcome Before the Models Do

Quantum machine learning (QML) for network intrusion detection (NIDS) is routinely reported to reach near-perfect accuracy, yet the most rigorous studies find that well-tuned classical models remain competitive, and that apparent quantum gains may be artefacts of classical dimensionality reduction and implicit regularisation rather than genuine quantum effects. We ask not whether a quantum model can post a high accuracy, but how quantum the advantage really is. We present a unified, reproducible QML-IDS benchmark evaluating hybrid variational quantum circuits and quantum-kernel SVMs against five honestly-tuned classical baselines across four standard NIDS datasets (NSL-KDD, UNSW-NB15, CICIDS2017, NF-ToN-IoT-v2) under one leakage-controlled protocol, with an equal-budget feature view, imbalance- and calibration-aware metrics with significance testing, and a simulated NISQ noise sweep. We introduce a quantum-attribution audit (parameter-matched classical controls, a random-feature kernel, and a regularisation sweep) that quantifies how much of any gain is genuinely attributable to the quantum component. Tuned classical models (Random Forest, XGBoost) match or exceed the quantum models on aggregate detection on every dataset, and the audit attributes this to classical preprocessing and regularisation rather than quantum effects. Two advantages survive false-discovery-rate correction: the quantum-kernel SVM out-ranks its direct classical surrogate (a random-feature kernel) on AUPRC and ROC-AUC, and a small four-qubit hybrid out-detects the best classical baseline at the 1% false-positive operating point on the distribution-shifted NSL-KDD task (p = 0.005, BH q = 0.030). Code, seeds, and splits are released; our contribution stands whether quantum wins, ties, or loses.

Quantum kernel methods have been proposed as a promising approach for leveraging near-term quantum computers for supervised learning, yet rigorous benchmarks against strong classical baselines remain scarce. We present a comprehensive empirical study of quantum kernel support vector machines (QSVMs) across nine binary classification datasets, four quantum feature maps, three classical kernels, and multiple noise models, totalling 970 experiments with strict nested cross-validation. Our analysis spans four phases: (i) statistical significance testing, revealing that none of 29 pairwise quantum-classical comparisons reach significance at $α= 0.05$; (ii) learning curve analysis over six training fractions, showing steeper quantum slopes on six of eight datasets that nonetheless fail to close the gap to the best classical baseline; (iii) hardware validation on IBM ibm_fez (Heron r2), demonstrating kernel fidelity $r \geq 0.976$ across six experiments; and (iv) seed sensitivity analysis confirming reproducibility (mean CV 1.4%). A Kruskal-Wallis factorial analysis reveals that dataset choice dominates performance variance ($\varepsilon^2 = 0.73$), while kernel type accounts for only 9%. Spectral analysis offers a mechanistic explanation: current quantum feature maps produce eigenspectra that are either too flat or too concentrated, missing the intermediate profile of the best classical kernel, the radial basis function (RBF). Quantum kernel training (QKT) via kernel-target alignment yields the single competitive result -- balanced accuracy 0.968 on breast cancer -- but with ~2,000x computational overhead. Our findings provide actionable guidelines for quantum kernel research. The complete benchmark suite is publicly available to facilitate reproduction and extension.

A potential path forward is Quantum Machine Learning (QML), which aims to leverage quantum computing in conjunction with classical machine learning to enhance computing efficiency and the expressiveness of models. In this paper, two different quantum classifiers - Variational Quantum Classifier (VQC) and Quantum Kernel Support Vector Machine (QSVM) - are compared with three classical classifiers as baseline classifiers - Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine (SVM), and a Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) - on the Breast Cancer Wisconsin dataset. The quantum circuits were created in the PennyLane framework and simulated on a classical backend. However, in terms of accuracy, classical Logistic Regression performed better with an accuracy of 97.8%, classical SVM and QSVM with an accuracy of 95.6% each, although the Quantum VQC achieved a lower accuracy of 88.9% and had a recall of 100% for the benign class, though it correctly identified only 12 of the 17 malignant cases (a malignant-class recall of approximately 70.6%). The drawback of quantum models is the higher training time; however, since the quantum circuit needs to be classically simulated, the quantum SVM took 23.29 seconds compared to less than 0.01 seconds for the classical linear models. These results indicate that for small structured datasets, classifiers based on quantum computing have not yet surpassed well-tuned classical counterparts. In some respects (e.g., benign-class recall), they perform competitively, though not on malignant-class recall, where the VQC in particular performed worse than the classical baselines, which is worth further investigation on real quantum computers.