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.

翻译：暂无翻译