# Transmit and Receive Diversity in MIMO Quantum Communication for High-Fidelity Video Transmission
## 4 Results and Discussion
The results imply that  
Figure 4: Comparison of average PSNR (**left column**), SSIM (**center column**), and VMAF (**right column**) for classical (C) and quantum (Q) systems across diversity schemes: (**a–c**) \(1\times 1\) SISO, (**d–f**) \(2\times 1\) MISO, and (**g–i**) \(1\times 2\) SIMO with GOP size 16.  
improvements offered by the quantum approach are robust across different video formats and playback speeds. Consequently, the performance advantages of the quantum system can be expected to hold under a wide range of practical video streaming conditions, supporting its applicability in various real-world scenarios. These findings also highlight the scalability and flexibility of the proposed quantum communication framework when handling video content of varying complexities and qualities. To assess the perceived visual quality of the video content, a subjective evaluation is performed using the double stimulus method [52], involving 80 participants between the ages of 17 and 55. The assessment covers GOP size 8 across three diversity scenarios: SISO, MISO, and SIMO. In this process, video sequences produced by both quantum and classical communication systems are shown, and participants are asked to rate the visual quality of each. The subjective quality scores follow the standard Mean Opinion Score (MOS) convention on a 0-100 scale, where 0-20 indicates bad, 21-40 poor, 41-60 fair, 61-80 good, and 81-100 excellent quality; the reported MOS values represent the average \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Frame Rate (fps)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**1280 \(\times\) 720**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**1920 \(\times\) 1080**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **1 \(\times\) 1** & **2 \(\times\) 1** & **1 \(\times\) 2** & **1 \(\times\) 1** & **2 \(\times\) 1** & **1 \(\times\) 2** \\ \hline
20 & 3.0 dB & 3.0 dB & 3.1 dB & 3.0 dB & 2.8 dB & 3.0 dB \\
30 & 3.0 dB & 2.9 dB & 3.0 dB & 3.0 dB & 3.0 dB \\
50 & 3.0 dB & 3.1 dB & 3.0 dB & 2.8 dB & 2.8 dB & 3.0 dB \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Maximum SNR gain for each diversity scheme of the quantum communication system compared to the corresponding diversity scheme of the classical communication system across different resolutions and frame rates. Figure 5: Comparison of average PSNR (**left column**), SSIM (**center column**), and VMAF (**right column**) for classical (C) and quantum (Q) systems across diversity schemes: (**a–c**) \(1\times 1\) SISO, (**d–f**) \(2\times 1\) MISO, and (**g–i**) \(1\times 2\) SIMO with GOP size 32.  
perceptual ratings across all evaluators. The collected ratings are analyzed and the results are presented in Figure 6 for SISO (1 \(\times\) 1), Figure 7 for MISO (2 \(\times\) 1), and Figure 8 for SIMO (1 \(\times\) 2). A clear alignment is found between subjective ratings and objective metrics such as PSNR, SSIM, and VMAF, confirming the consistency of both evaluation approaches. To further validate the results, a sample of decoded frames for each diversity scenario, as well as for both quantum and classical systems, is presented in Figure 9. Under MISO and SIMO configurations, the images are decoded at an SNR of 7.5 dB. However, under SISO, decoding at SNR 7.5 dB is not possible due to the high BER. Therefore, the decoded frame at an SNR of 10 dB is included for the SISO configuration. Visual inspection of these frames corresponds well to subjective and objective quality metrics, thereby reinforcing the validity of the findings. Motivated by the demand for low-complexity systems capable of delivering high visual quality in real-time, this study introduces a hybrid communication framework that integrates classical and quantum technologies. The proposed architecture is designed to support near-real-time implementation while maintaining minimal system complexity, making it well-suited for deployment in resource-constrained environments.