Skip to main content
Log in

Influences of Gate Operation Errors in the Quantum Counting Algorithm

  • Short Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Computer Science and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, the error analysis in the quantum counting algorithm is investigated. It has been found that the random error plays as important a role as the systematic error does in the phase inversion operations. Both systematic and random errors are important in the Hadamard transformation. This is quite different from the Grover algorithm and the Shor algorithm.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shor P W. Algorithms for quantum computation: Discrete logarighms and factoring. In Proc. Symposium on the Foundings of Computer Science, Los Alamitos, California, 1994, pp.124–134.

  2. Grover L K. Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack. Phys. Rev. Lett., 1997, 79(2): 325–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Nielsen M A, Chuang I L. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Boyer M, Brassard G, Høyer P, Tapp A. Tight bounds on quantum searching. Fortsch. Phys., 1998, 46(4-5): 493–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee Jae-Seung, Kim Jaehyun, Cheong Yongwook, Lee Soonchil. Implementation of phase estimation and quantum counting algorithms on an NMR quantum-information processor. Phys. Rev. A, 2002, 66(4): 042316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Long G L, Li Y S, Zhang W L, Tu C C. Dominant gate imperfection in Grover’s quantum search algorithm. Phys. Rev. A, 2000, 61(4): 042305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Guo H, Long G L, Sun Y. Effects of imperfect gate operations in Shor’s prime factorization algorithm. J. Chin. Chem. Soc., 2001, 48: 449–454.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Shenvi Neil, Brown K R, Whaley K B. Effects of a random noisy oracle on search algorithm complexity. Phys. Rev. A, 2003, 68(5): 052313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Niwa Jumpei, Matsumoto Keiji, Imai Hiroshi. General-purpose parallel simulator for quantum computing. Phys. Rev. A, 2002, 66(6): 062317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wei L F, Li X, Hu X D, Noril Franco. Effects of dynamical phases in Shor’s factoring algorithm with operational delays. Phys. Rev. A, 2005, 71(2): 022317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Long G L, Zhang W L, Li Y S, Niu L. Arbitrary phase rotation of the marked state cannot be used for Grover’s quantum search algorithm. Commun. Theor. Phys., 1999, 32: 335–338.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Long G L, Li Y S, Zhang W L, Niu L. Phase matching in quantum searching. Phys. Lett. A, 1999, 262(1): 27–34.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Long G L, Li X, Sun Y. Phase matching condition for quantum search with a generalized initial state. Phys. Lett. A, 2002, 294(3-4): 143–152.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Long G L. Grover algorithm with zero theoretical failure rate. Phys. Rev. A, 2001, 64(2): 022307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gui-Lu Long.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ai, Q., Li, YS. & Long, GL. Influences of Gate Operation Errors in the Quantum Counting Algorithm. J Comput Sci Technol 21, 927–932 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-006-0927-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-006-0927-6

Keywords

Navigation