Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Machine Learning

Analysis of five techniques for the internal representation of a digital image inside a quantum processor

arXiv
Authors: Sundaraja Sitharama Iyengar, Latesh K. J. Kumar, Mario Mastriani

Year

2020

Paper ID

21744

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

87

Citations

N/A

Abstract

In this paper, five techniques, for the representation of a digital image inside a quantum processor, are compared. The techniques are: flexible representation of quantum images (FRQI), novel enhanced quantum representation (NEQR), generalized quantum image representation (GQIR), multi-channel representation for quantum images (MCQI), and quantum Boolean image processing (QBIP). The comparison will be based on implementations on the Quirk simulator, and on the IBM Q Experience processors, from the point of view of performance, robustness (noise immunity), deterioration of the outcomes due to decoherence, and technical viability.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Machine Learning research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2020 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • In this paper, five techniques, for the representation of a digital image inside a quantum processor, are compared.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #21744 #78828 Verifiable Sampling for Delegat... #78813 Large-Scale Benchmarking of Qua... #78775 On linearity or non-linearity i...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.