How do quantum-generated synthetic images differ from classical GAN outputs in terms of mode collapse or diversity?

The preprints provided focus on quantum generative models but don't directly compare mode collapse or output diversity between quantum and classical GANs—they mainly benchmark overall image quality metrics like Fréchet Inception Distance (FID) and SSIM rather than analyzing failure modes.

That said, the archive does hint at relevant differences:

Architectural advantages in quantum systems:

Quantum GANs leverage the "stronger expressibility of quantum circuits" [AG-2024.04-1667], which in principle should help them explore a richer space of possible outputs. The entangling power of quantum gates—their ability to create correlated superpositions—could theoretically make it harder for a quantum generator to collapse into a narrow set of modes, since it must maintain coherence across many possible states simultaneously.

Hybrid approaches as a workaround:

Several papers use hybrid classical-quantum architectures, which suggests pure quantum generators alone may face practical limitations. For instance, LaSt-QGAN uses "powerful classical auto-encoders to map high-dimensional original image dataset into a latent representation" before the quantum part takes over [AG-2024.06-1536]. This design choice implies that working in latent space (rather than directly on pixels) helps—though whether this reduces mode collapse compared to purely classical latent GANs is not stated.

Missing evidence:

The archive doesn't measure mode collapse directly (e.g., via counting unique samples or computing coverage metrics) or compare diversity head-to-head between quantum and classical generators at the same capacity. To properly answer your question, you'd need papers that explicitly study these failure modes.