Comparing Classical and Quantum Generative Learning Models for High-Fidelity Image Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of computer vision has long grappled with the challenging task of image synthesis, which entails the creation of novel high-fidelity images. This task is underscored by the Generative Learning Trilemma, which posits that it is not possible for any image synthesis model to simultaneously excel at high-quality sampling, achieve mode convergence with diverse sample representation, and perform rapid sampling. In this paper, we explore the potential of Quantum Boltzmann Machines (QBMs) for image synthesis, leveraging the D-Wave 2000Q quantum annealer. We undertake a comprehensive performance assessment of QBMs in comparison to established generative models in the field: Restricted Boltzmann Machines (RBMs), Variational Autoencoders (VAEs), Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), and Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models (DDPMs). Our evaluation is grounded in widely recognized scoring metrics, including the Fréchet Inception Distance (FID), Kernel Inception Distance (KID), and Inception Scores. The results of our study indicate that QBMs do not significantly outperform the conventional models in terms of the three evaluative criteria. Moreover, QBMs have not demonstrated the capability to overcome the challenges outlined in the Trilemma of Generative Learning. Through our investigation, we contribute to the understanding of quantum computing’s role in generative learning and identify critical areas for future research to enhance the capabilities of image synthesis models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".