Empirical Evaluation of Quantum Kernel Methods for Classification: A Comparative Study with Classical Kernels

Abstract

Quantum kernel methods are the most concrete near-term proposal for quantum machine learning on classical data, yet published benchmarks disagree on whether they outperform tuned classical kernels, and the disagreement cannot be resolved from the literature because the comparisons are not protocol-controlled. We argue that the obstacle is one of measurement, not theory: the usual setup fixes the quantum feature map's data scaling while grid-searching the classical kernel's hyperparameters, recomputes nothing per fold, and reports cost in simulator time. We therefore treat the comparison itself as the object of study and impose three controls. The bandwidth is tuned on the same grid budget as the classical $γ$, the kernel is recomputed inside every fold from fold-fitted preprocessing, and cost is counted in hardware circuit evaluations. On top of these we run a factorial design of 324 cells in which dimensionality, training size, class separability and data structure are explicit covariates, together with four standard datasets, a shots-versus-gate-noise ablation, and a cost sweep. The dominant effect we measure is not quantum: tuning the feature map's bandwidth is worth 0.120 accuracy on synthetic data and 0.339 on real data, exceeding every quantum-classical difference we observe. Tuned quantum kernels are then statistically indistinguishable from a tuned RBF on all four real datasets. The advantage on synthetic data is confined almost entirely to data generated by the feature map itself, and it shrinks with dimensionality (-0.0045 per qubit) while growing with sample size. Finite sampling costs an order of magnitude more accuracy than gate and readout noise, and a fidelity kernel needs $5\times10^{7}$ circuits at n = 10,000. Protocol variance is thus sufficient to explain the field's contradictory conclusions.