This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Luca Innocenti(talk | contribs) at 18:41, 7 August 2023(clarified a bit the intro; removed the "eigenvalue estimation" terminology, which is really not that standard; if you want to include, please add a reference to papers or books using it). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 18:41, 7 August 2023 by Luca Innocenti(talk | contribs)(clarified a bit the intro; removed the "eigenvalue estimation" terminology, which is really not that standard; if you want to include, please add a reference to papers or books using it)
In quantum computing, the quantum phase estimation algorithm is a quantum algorithm to estimate the phase corresponding to an eigenvalue of a given unitary operator. Because the eigenvalues of a unitary operator always have unit modulus, they are characterized by their phase, and therefore the algorithm can be equivalently thought of as either retrieving the phase or as retrieving the eigenvalue itself.
More precisely, given a unitary matrix and a quantum state such that , the algorithm returns an approximation for the phase , with high probability within additive error , using qubits (without counting the ones used to encode the eigenvector state) and controlled-U operations. The algorithm was initially introduced by Alexei Kitaev in 1995.[1][2]: 246
We would like to find the eigenvalue of , which in this case is equivalent to estimating the phase , to a finite level of precision. We can write the eigenvalue in the form because U is a unitary operator over a complex vector space, so its eigenvalues must be complex numbers with absolute value 1.
The algorithm
The circuit for quantum phase estimation.
Setup
The input consists of two registers (namely, two parts): the upper qubits comprise the first register, and the lower qubits are the second register.
Let be a unitary operator with eigenvector such that . Thus,
.
Overall, the transformation implemented on the two registers by the controlled gates applying isThis can be seen by the decomposition of into its bitstring and binary representation, where . Clearly, becomesEach will only apply if the qubit is , implying that it is controlled by that bit. Therefore the overall transformation to is equivalent to the controlled gates from each -th qubit.
Therefore, the state will be transformed by the controlled gates like so:At this point, the second register with the eigenvector is not needed. It can be reused again in another run of phase estimation. The state without is
We can approximate the value of by rounding to the nearest integer. This means that where is the nearest integer to and the difference satisfies .
Using this decomposition we can rewrite the state as where
Measurement
Performing a measurement in the computational basis on the first register yields the outcome with probabilityIt follows that if , that is, when can be written as , one always finds the outcome . On the other hand, if , the probability readsFrom this expression we can see that when . To see this, we observe that from the definition of we have the inequality , and thus:[3]: 157 [4]: 348 We conclude that the algorithm always provides the best -bit estimate of with high probability. By adding a number of extra qubits on the order of and truncating the extra qubits the probability can increase to .[4]
Toy examples
Consider the simplest possible instance of the algorithm, where only qubit, on top of the qubits required to encode , is involved. Suppose the eigenvalue of reads . The first part of the algorithm generates the one-qubit state . Applying the inverse QFT amounts in this case to applying a Hadamard gate. The final outcome probabilities are thus where , or more explicitly,Suppose , meaning . Then , , and we recover deterministically the precise value of from the measurement outcomes. The same applies if .
If on the other hand , then , that is, and . In this case the result is not deterministic, but we still find the outcome as more likely, compatibly with the fact that is close to 1 than to 0.
More generally, if , then if and only if . This is consistent with the results above because in the cases , corresponding to , the phase is retrieved deterministically, adn the ther phases are retrieved with higher accuracy the more they are close to these two.
^Kitaev, A. Yu (1995-11-20). "Quantum measurements and the Abelian Stabilizer Problem". arXiv:quant-ph/9511026.
^ abNielsen, Michael A. & Isaac L. Chuang (2001). Quantum computation and quantum information (Repr. ed.). Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN978-0521635035.
^Benenti, Guiliano; Casati, Giulio; Strini, Giuliano (2004). Principles of quantum computation and information (Reprinted. ed.). New Jersey [u.a.]: World Scientific. ISBN978-9812388582.