Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 45 references

From Bits to Qubits: Challenges in Classical-Quantum Integration

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper measures three quantum image encodings and concludes that none dominates; FRQI best balances accuracy and qubit count for near-term tasks.

desk verdict Useful benchmark data, but the FRQI recommendation in the conclusion is an overreach that the paper's own numbers do not support. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18905 v1 pith:DIR7V2MR submitted 2025-01-31 cs.ET quant-ph

Sudhanshu Pravin Kulkarni , Daniel E. Huang , E. Wes Bethel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ETquant-ph
keywords quantumencodingimageprocessingFRQIQubitLatticePhasecircuitdepthbenchmarkinghybridclassical-quantumcomputing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish how much classical-to-quantum encoding costs in practice by running three common image-encoding methods through the same workflow: encode a grayscale image, invert its pixels, decode, and compare. It finds the methods are complementary rather than ranked: Qubit Lattice and Phase Encoding use one qubit per pixel and stay accurate at low shot counts, while FRQI uses far fewer qubits but needs deeper circuits and many shots. The conclusion is that no encoding technique wins on every metric, so the right choice depends on the algorithm, the circuit size, the shot budget, and the hardware. This matters because encoding overhead is often left out of quantum-advantage estimates, and the paper quantifies that hidden cost.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a comparative benchmark built around a single unary workload: encode a grayscale image, invert every pixel value, decode, and measure. Three encodings are implemented as gate circuits: Qubit Lattice applies one Ry rotation per pixel on its own qubit; Phase Encoding applies an H-Rz-H sandwich per pixel; FRQI builds a uniform superposition over pixel positions and then applies a multi-controlled Ry rotation per pixel to encode intensity. The comparison metrics are circuit width and depth, encoding runtime, precision and mean relative error, Hellinger fidelity between ideal and measured distributions, and the circuit-structure features of communication, critical depth, entanglement ratio, parallelism, and liveness. That combination lets the paper attribute accuracy differences to shot count and circuit structure rather than to the specific pixel-inversion operation.

What would settle it

Run the same benchmarks with repeated random images per size (for example, 20 trials per size) and compute confidence intervals for precision and mean error; if the reported differences between methods at a given size collapse to noise, the ranking claim is not supported. Also inspect how the relative-error formula handled pixels whose expected value was zero; if those pixels were dropped or assigned arbitrary errors, recomputing the mean error with a defined convention would show whether the accuracy comparisons still hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that classical-to-quantum encoding is a multi-dimensional trade-off. Qubit Lattice and Phase Encoding each consume one qubit per pixel, keep circuit depth low, and reconstruct accurately at low shot counts, while FRQI compresses a $2^n \times 2^n$ image into $2n+1$ qubits at the cost of deep multi-controlled-rotation circuits, lower fidelity at practical shot counts, and precision that improves only as the shot count grows. On the tested real device, the largest FRQI circuit (16×16, depth 2554) could not be executed after transpilation, which the paper takes as evidence that hardware limits currently cap the practical input size. The paper concludes that no encoding method wins on every metric, and that FRQI offers a practical balance of accuracy and minimal qubit requirements for near-term quantum image processing when qubits are scarce.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that the precision and error numbers measured from a single random image at each size are stable enough to rank the encoding methods, even though the experiments were not repeated and the relative-error metric is undefined for zero-valued pixels.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Practitioners should include encoding and decoding overhead, plus the shot count needed for a target accuracy, when estimating whether a quantum image-processing task will actually run faster or cheaper than a classical pipeline.
  • Qubit Lattice and Phase Encoding remain reasonable choices for small images when qubits are plentiful and per-shot accuracy matters most.
  • FRQI's low qubit count makes it the fastest encoder at a given image size, but its accuracy improves only with more shots, which inflates total runtime; the optimal shot budget is set by the accuracy-versus-runtime trade-off.
  • Circuit-structure features such as critical depth and entanglement ratio point to where noise will hurt: FRQI's many controlled two-qubit gates align with its lower fidelity and its failure to run at 16×16 on the real device.
  • No single encoding should be treated as a default for all quantum image processing; the paper's data support matching the encoding to the workload and hardware constraints.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves the zero-expected-value cases in its relative-error formula undefined; because random grayscale images contain zero-valued pixels with probability 1/256 per pixel, re-running the error analysis with an explicit convention could shift the reported mean errors and the accuracy ranking.
  • The single-random-image-per-size design means the paper has not demonstrated stable differences between Qubit Lattice and Phase Encoding at specific sizes; repeated trials with confidence intervals are the natural next experiment to test whether the precision swings (for example, Qubit Lattice 43.75% at 4×4 versus 56% at 5×5) are real.
  • The same trade-off pattern a reasonable reader would predict for other real-valued data—one-qubit-per-value angle encodings versus logarithmically-few-qubit amplitude encodings—is likely to hold, but the paper only shows it for grayscale images and a single inversion operation, so extrapolation to other data types is an inference, not a result.
  • FRQI's 'practical balance' claim implicitly assumes that shot count can be raised to recover accuracy without exceeding runtime or decoherence budgets; on current hardware the window in which that balance holds may be narrow, since the largest tested circuit already exceeded device capacity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper compares three classical-to-quantum data encoding techniques—Qubit Lattice, Phase Encoding, and FRQI—for grayscale image data, measuring encoding runtime, circuit width and depth, reconstruction precision and error, Hellinger fidelity, SupermarQ features, and backend-dependent accuracy and runtime. The authors report that no encoding technique excels across all metrics and recommend FRQI as a practical balance of accuracy and minimal qubit requirements for near-term quantum image processing. The study includes a public code repository and experiments on simulators as well as on IBM Quantum hardware.

Significance. The comparative scope is timely and relevant for practitioners working on hybrid classical-quantum application design. The paper's use of standard tools (Qiskit, SupermarQ metrics, Hellinger fidelity) and its inclusion of real IBMQ results are strengths, and the public code repository supports reproducibility. However, the headline recommendation about FRQI is not supported by the reported data: at matched input sizes FRQI has the lowest precision, and at the largest size the circuit cannot run on the IBMQ backend after transpilation. The statistical basis of the main comparison—single trials, no confidence intervals, and an error metric undefined for zero-valued pixels—is too weak to license a practical recommendation. The broader claim that no encoding universally excels is plausible, but the evidence as presented is not strong enough to distinguish that finding from a qualitative statement about the three methods.

major comments (5)
  1. [Table I and Sec. V-C] The precision and mean error values in Table I are reported for a single randomized image per input size, with no repeated trials, no confidence intervals, and no stated shot count for the simulation experiments. Because precision values such as Qubit Lattice at 43.75% for 4x4 and 56% for 5x5 differ by amounts that are plausibly sampling noise, the current data do not support quantitative comparisons among encodings. Please report repeated trials with error bars and state the shot count for every table entry.
  2. [Sec. IV-B2] The error formula E = |V_observed - V_expected| / V_expected is undefined whenever V_expected = 0. For randomized grayscale images, each pixel has probability 1/256 of being zero, and the paper does not state how such pixels were handled before computing the mean error. This affects the numeric values in Table I and the accuracy curves in Figures 6 and 9; please specify the convention used (for example, excluding such pixels, clamping the denominator, or treating them as a special case).
  3. [Conclusion and Table I] The recommendation that 'FRQI offers a practical balance of accuracy and minimal qubit requirements' is not licensed by the reported data. At the only matched conventional size, 4x4, FRQI precision is 31.25% versus 68.75% for Phase Encoding; at 16x16 the FRQI circuit has 20.46% precision and fails to run on the IBMQ backend after transpilation. With no decision rule or weighting that makes qubit width overwhelmingly more important than accuracy, this statement is an assertion rather than a finding. Please either add a trade-off analysis that quantifies the relative importance of width, depth, accuracy, and hardware runnability, or remove the recommendation.
  4. [Sec. IV-C and Table I] The unary operation used to generate the reconstruction data—'invert the pixel value'—is never defined at the mathematical or circuit level, and the decoding formulas in Eqs. (5) and (11) are not accompanied by the inversion step. Without a precise description of the operation and the measurement-to-value mapping, the accuracy and precision values cannot be independently reproduced or checked. Please provide the explicit gate sequence and the exact inversion formula used.
  5. [Sec. IV-C and Fig. 7] The input-size ranges are disjoint for the three encodings: Qubit Lattice and Phase Encoding are evaluated only up to 5x5, while FRQI is evaluated at 2^n sizes. Consequently, the fidelity comparison in Figure 7 compares different problem sizes, and the only size at which all three methods are directly comparable is 2x2 (with 4x4 available for the precision comparison). Please restrict cross-method comparisons to matched input sizes, or clearly label unmatched comparisons as scaling trends rather than head-to-head differences.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II-A] The phrase 'with diagram known as a Bloch Sphere' should read 'with a diagram known as a Bloch sphere'.
  2. [Sec. III-C, Eq. (8)] The normalization factor is written as 1/2^n, but the sum runs over 2^{2n} basis states; the notation is ambiguous because n is not defined as the number of position qubits in this equation. Please clarify the role of n in the normalization.
  3. [Sec. III-C] The sentence 'FRQI performs better than the Qubit Lattice and Phase Encoding models as it can process all pixels of the image simultaneously' appears in the description of the method but is not supported by the later precision results. Consider moving this claim to the discussion or removing it.
  4. [Sec. IV-B6] The parallelism formula is missing a closing parenthesis, and the liveness definition contains the typos 'quibit' and 'otehrwise'; these should be corrected.
  5. [Sec. IV-B5 and Fig. 6] The probabilistic experiment is described as measuring the correlation between shot count, accuracy, and runtime, but Figure 6 appears to plot only two quantities; please specify the axes and describe how the shaded 'area of interest' is computed from the accuracy/runtime ratio.
  6. [Sec. V-A and Fig. 4] The runtime comparison in Figure 4 uses different problem sizes for FRQI than for Qubit Lattice and Phase Encoding, so the statement that FRQI is fastest conflates encoding method with input size; consider plotting runtime per pixel or per qubit on matched sizes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an empirical benchmark using standard metrics, with no fitted-input prediction and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

This is an empirical comparison study, not a derivation. The paper reports measured runtimes, circuit width and depth, Hellinger fidelity, precision, mean error, and SupermarQ metrics for three published encoding methods. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed as a prediction; the correctness metrics are compared against the true input pixel values rather than against a fitted calibration. The only self-citation is ref. [4] (Bethel et al., a visualization survey), which is background material and is not load-bearing for any conclusion. The FRQI decoding formula (Eq. 11) is specific to the FRQI ansatz, but this is a standard property of the encoding model, and the comparison uses the appropriate inverse for each method; it does not force the paper's comparative findings. The concluding preference for FRQI is an interpretive recommendation that goes beyond what the reported data strictly support, but a weak inference is not circularity. Under the standard for this pass, no quoted step reduces an output to an input by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The benchmark rests on the standard gate-based quantum circuit model and on Qiskit AerSimulator as the ground-truth simulator. It also assumes the single IBM Osaka backend is representative of NISQ hardware and that the SupermarQ metrics are meaningful for encoding circuits. There are no fitted free parameters and no newly invented entities.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Standard quantum mechanics: Born rule, state normalization, unitary rotations
    Used throughout Section II and in all encoding circuits.
  • domain assumption Qiskit AerSimulator accurately models ideal and noisy quantum circuits
    All simulation results depend on Qiskit's fidelity; no independent verification of simulator accuracy.
  • domain assumption IBM Osaka hardware behavior is representative of NISQ devices
    Backend comparison in Section V-G draws conclusions about real-hardware accuracy from one IBM machine.
  • domain assumption SupermarQ metrics as defined by Tomesh et al. are meaningful proxies for noise and parallelism
    Section V-F interprets circuit quality via these metrics without validating them for encoding circuits.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Bits to Qubits: Challenges in Classical-Quantum Integration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DIR7V2MR

@misc{pith2026250118905,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Bits to Qubits: Challenges in Classical-Quantum Integration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DIR7V2MR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18905}
}
read the original abstract

While quantum computing holds immense potential for tackling previously intractable problems, its current practicality remains limited. A critical aspect of realizing quantum utility is the ability to efficiently interface with data from the classical world. This research focuses on the crucial phase of quantum encoding, which enables the transformation of classical information into quantum states for processing within quantum systems. We focus on three prominent encoding models: Phase Encoding, Qubit Lattice, and Flexible Representation of Quantum Images (FRQI) for cost and efficiency analysis. The aim of quantifying their different characteristics is to analyze their impact on quantum processing workflows. This comparative analysis offers valuable insights into their limitations and potential to accelerate the development of practical quantum computing solutions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18905 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Bloch sphere is a geometric representation of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualizing the Qubit Lattice transformation using a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualizing the Phase Encoding technique using a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Understanding the trend of the core properties of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Encoding runtime analysis for the whole range of input [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparing circuit fidelity of all three encoding tech [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: SupermarQ features for all three encoding experiments. Detailed legend: Conn - [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FRQI model executed on multiple hardware for all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Future Of Computing Is Hybrid: Why Quantum Computers Will Work Alongside Classical Systems

    Forbes Councils Member Alex Keesling. The Future Of Computing Is Hybrid: Why Quantum Computers Will Work Alongside Classical Systems . https://www.forbes. com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2023/11/10/the-future-of- computing- is- hybrid- why- quantum- computers- will- work-alongside-classical-systems/?sh=19185a4258c2

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Quantum pixel representa- tions and compression for N-dimensional images

    Mercy G. Amankwah et al. “Quantum pixel representa- tions and compression for N-dimensional images”. In: Scientific Reports 12.1 (May 2022). ISSN : 2045-2322. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-11024-y. URL: http://dx.doi. org/10.1038/s41598-022-11024-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-022-11024-y 2022

  3. [3]

    The Quantum Revolution Is Here, Its Name Is Hybrid

    Arthur Herman. The Quantum Revolution Is Here, Its Name Is Hybrid . https : / / www . forbes . com / sites / arthurherman / 2022 / 04 / 29 / the - quantum - revolution - is-here-its-name-is-hybrid

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Quantum Computing and Visual- ization: A Disruptive Technological Change Ahead

    E. Wes Bethel et al. “Quantum Computing and Visual- ization: A Disruptive Technological Change Ahead”. In: IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 43.6 (Nov. 2023). In press, https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2023. 3316932. DOI: 10.1109/MCG.2023.3316932

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Nuclear Induction

    F. Bloch. “Nuclear Induction”. In: Phys. Rev. 70 (7-8 Oct. 1946), pp. 460–474. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.70.460. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.70.460

    doi:10.1103/physrev.70.460 1946

  6. [6]

    Variational quantum algorithms

    Marco Cerezo et al. “Variational quantum algorithms”. In: Nature Reviews Physics 3.9 (2021), pp. 625–644

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    An approximate Fourier transform useful in quantum factoring

    Don Coppersmith. “An approximate Fourier transform useful in quantum factoring”. In: arXiv preprint quant- ph/0201067 (2002)

    arXiv 2002

  8. [8]

    IBM Quantum Compute Resources

    IBM Corporation. IBM Quantum Compute Resources . Online at https://quantum.ibm.com/services/resources, last accessed Oct 2024. 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Validating quantum computers using randomized model circuits

    Andrew W. Cross et al. “Validating quantum computers using randomized model circuits”. In: Phys. Rev. A 100 (3 Sept. 2019), p. 032328. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA. 100.032328. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.100.032328

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    The LINPACK Benchmark: Past, Present, and Future

    Jack Dongarra, Piotr Luszczek, and Antoine Petitet. “The LINPACK Benchmark: Past, Present, and Future”. In: Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Expe- rience 15.9 (2003), pp. 803–820

    2003

  3. [11]

    Quark: A framework for quantum computing application benchmarking

    Jernej Rudi Finzgar et al. “Quark: A framework for quantum computing application benchmarking”. In: 2022 IEEE international conference on quantum com- puting and engineering (QCE) . IEEE. 2022, pp. 226– 237

    2022

  4. [12]

    Lov K. Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search . 1996. arXiv: quant- ph/9605043 [quant-ph]

    1996

  5. [13]

    Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations

    Aram W. Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd. “Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations”. In: Physical Review Letters 103.15 (2009), p. 150502. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.150502

    2009 doi

  6. [14]

    Jack D. Hidary. Quantum Computing: An Applied Ap- proach. Springer, 2019. ISBN : 978-3-030-23921-3. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-23922-0

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Flexible representation of quantum images (frqi) and novel enhanced quantum representation (neqr)

    IBM. Flexible representation of quantum images (frqi) and novel enhanced quantum representation (neqr)

  8. [16]

    Qiskit API reference - Qiskit AerSimulator

    IBM. Qiskit API reference - Qiskit AerSimulator . https: //qiskit.github.io/qiskit-aer/

  9. [17]

    Qiskit API reference - Qiskit Hellinger Fidelity

    IBM. Qiskit API reference - Qiskit Hellinger Fidelity . https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/api/qiskit/0.37/qiskit. quantum info.hellinger fidelity

  10. [18]

    A flexible representation of quantum images for polyno- mial preparation, image compression, and processing operations

    Phuc Q Le, Fangyan Dong, and Kaoru Hirota. “A flexible representation of quantum images for polyno- mial preparation, image compression, and processing operations”. In: Quantum Information Processing 10 (2011), pp. 63–84

    2011

  11. [19]

    The bitter truth about gate-based quantum algorithms in the NISQ era

    Frank Leymann and Johanna Barzen. “The bitter truth about gate-based quantum algorithms in the NISQ era”. In: Quantum Science and Technology 5 (Sept. 2020). DOI: 10.1088/2058-9565/abae7d

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    Quantum image representation: a review

    Marina Lisnichenko and Stanislav Protasov. “Quantum image representation: a review”. In: Quantum Machine Intelligence 5 (Dec. 2022). DOI: 10.1007/s42484-022- 00089-7

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    Application-Oriented Perfor- mance Benchmarks for Quantum Computing

    Thomas Lubinski et al. Application-Oriented Perfor- mance Benchmarks for Quantum Computing . 2023. arXiv: 2110.03137 [quant-ph]. 10

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Boston Consulting Group

    Matt Langione, Jean-francois Bobier, Lisa Krayer, Hanl Park and Amit Kumar. Boston Consulting Group. The Quantum Revolution Is Here, Its Name Is Hybrid. https: / / bcg . com / publications / 2022 / value - of - quantum - computing-benchmarks

    2022

  15. [23]

    QPack: Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithms as universal benchmark for quantum computers

    Koen Mesman, Zaid Al-Ars, and Matthias M ¨oller. QPack: Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithms as universal benchmark for quantum computers . 2022. arXiv: 2103.17193 [cs.ET]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Software mitigation of crosstalk on noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers

    Prakash Murali et al. “Software mitigation of crosstalk on noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers”. In: Proceedings of the Twenty Fifth International Confer- ence on Architectural Support for Programming Lan- guages and Operating Systems . 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Nielsen and I.L

    M.A. Nielsen and I.L. Chuang. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information . Cambridge Series on Infor- mation and the Natural Sciences. Cambridge University Press, 2000. ISBN : 9780521635035. URL: https://books. google.com/books?id=65FqEKQOfP8C

    2000

  18. [26]

    Classification of Hybrid Quantum-Classical Computing

    Frank Phillipson, Niels Neumann, and Robert Weze- man. “Classification of Hybrid Quantum-Classical Computing”. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science . Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023, pp. 18–33. ISBN : 9783031360305. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-36030-5 2. URL: http://dx.doi.org/1...

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond

    John Preskill. “Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond”. In: Quantum 2 (Aug. 2018), p. 79. ISSN : 2521-327X. DOI: 10.22331/q- 2018- 08- 06- 79. URL: https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    Qiskit: An Open-Source Framework for Quantum Computing

    Qiskit Community. Qiskit: An Open-Source Framework for Quantum Computing . 2023. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo. 2562110. URL: https://github.com/Qiskit/qiskit

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    Hybrid Quantum-Classical Computing - A Fusion of Classical And Quantum Computational Substrates

    Ravindra Ramouthar and Huseyin Seker. Hybrid Quantum-Classical Computing - A Fusion of Classical And Quantum Computational Substrates . July 2023. DOI: 10 . 31730 / osf . io / rj7cv.URL: osf . io / preprints / africarxiv/rj7cv

    2023

  22. [30]

    Quantum decoherence

    Maximilian Schlosshauer. “Quantum decoherence”. In: Physics Reports 831 (Oct. 2019), pp. 1–57. ISSN : 0370-

    2019

  23. [31]

    Machine Learning with Quantum Computers

    Maria Schuld and Francesco Petruccione. Machine Learning with Quantum Computers . Springer Cham,

  24. [32]

    Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer

    Peter W. Shor. “Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer”. In: SIAM Journal on Computing 26.5 (Oct. 1997), pp. 1484–1509. ISSN : 1095-7111. DOI: 10.1137/ s0097539795293172. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/ S0097539795293172

    1997

  25. [33]

    Hybrid Quantum-Classical Com- puting Architectures

    Martin Suchara et al. “Hybrid Quantum-Classical Com- puting Architectures”. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Inter- national Workshop on Post-Moore Era Supercomputing,

  26. [34]

    A Multi-Channel Representation for images on quantum computers using the RGB α color space

    Bo Sun et al. “A Multi-Channel Representation for images on quantum computers using the RGB α color space”. In: 2011 IEEE 7th International Symposium on Intelligent Signal Processing . 2011, pp. 1–6. DOI: 10. 1109/WISP.2011.6051718

    2011

  27. [35]

    SupermarQ: A Scalable Quan- tum Benchmark Suite

    Teague Tomesh et al. SupermarQ: A Scalable Quan- tum Benchmark Suite . 2022. arXiv: 2202 . 11045 [quant-ph]

    2022

  28. [36]

    Stor- ing, processing, and retrieving an image using quan- tum mechanics

    Salvador E Venegas-Andraca and Sougato Bose. “Stor- ing, processing, and retrieving an image using quan- tum mechanics”. In: Quantum Information and Com- putation. Ed. by Eric Donkor, Andrew R. Pirich, and Howard E. Brandt. V ol. 5105. International Society for Optics and Phot...

    2003 doi

  29. [37]

    Quality, Speed, and Scale: three key attributes to measure the performance of near- term quantum computers

    Andrew Wack et al. Quality, Speed, and Scale: three key attributes to measure the performance of near- term quantum computers . 2021. arXiv: 2110 . 14108 [quant-ph]

    2021

  30. [38]

    Benchmarking an 11-qubit quan- tum computer

    Kenneth Wright et al. “Benchmarking an 11-qubit quan- tum computer”. In: Nature communications 10.1 (2019), p. 5464

    2019

  31. [39]

    Lessons from Twenty Years of Quantum Image Processing

    Fei Yan and Salvador E. Venegas-Andraca. “Lessons from Twenty Years of Quantum Image Processing”. In: ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing(May 2024). Just Accepted. DOI: 10.1145/3663577. URL: https://doi. org/10.1145/3663577

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    NEQR: a novel enhanced quantum rep- resentation of digital images

    Yi Zhang et al. “NEQR: a novel enhanced quantum rep- resentation of digital images”. In: Quantum information processing 12 (2013), pp. 2833–2860

    2013

  33. [41]

    Quantum Crosstalk Analysis for Simultaneous Gate Operations on Superconducting Qubits

    Peng Zhao et al. “Quantum Crosstalk Analysis for Simultaneous Gate Operations on Superconducting Qubits”. In: PRX Quantum 3 (2 Apr. 2022), p. 020301. DOI: 10 . 1103 / PRXQuantum . 3 . 020301. URL: https : //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.020301. 11

    2022 doi

  34. [1573]

    URL: http: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2019.10.001

    DOI: 10.1016/j.physrep.2019.10.001. URL: http: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2019.10.001

    2019 doi

  35. [2018]

    URL: https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10084839

    (). URL: https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10084839

  36. [2020]

    URL: https : / / learn . qiskit . org / course / ch - applications / %20flexible - representation - of - quantum - images-frqi

  37. [2021]

    ISBN : 978-3-030-83098-4. DOI: 10 . 1007 / 978 - 3-030-83098-4

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.