Quick Navigation
Topics
Trapped Ion Quantum Computing
Adaptive quantum phase estimation can be better than non-adaptive
arXiv
Authors: Noah Linden, Ronald de Wolf
Year
2025
Paper ID
17469
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
136
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Quantum phase estimation is one of the most important tools in quantum algorithms. It can be made non-adaptive meaning all applications of the unitary $U_φ$ happen simultaneously without using more applications of U_φ, albeit at the expense of using many more qubits. It is also known that there is no advantage for adaptive algorithms in the case where the phase that needs to be estimated is arbitrary or is uniformly random. Here we give examples of a special case of phase estimation, with a promise on the values that the unknown phase can take, where adaptive methods are provably better than non-adaptive methods by a factor of nearly 2 in the number of uses of U_φ. We also prove some upper bounds on the maximum advantage that adaptive algorithms for phase estimation can achieve over non-adaptive ones.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2025 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Quantum phase estimation is one of the most important tools in quantum algorithms.
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.