Quick Navigation

Overview Topics Abstract Importance Paper Tools References Reactions Discussion Publication Related

Topics

Trapped Ion Quantum Computing

Quipper: Concrete Resource Estimation in Quantum Algorithms

arXiv

Authors: Jonathan M. Smith, Neil J. Ross, Peter Selinger, Benoît Valiron

Year

2014

Paper ID

46145

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Despite the rich literature on quantum algorithms, there is a surprisingly small amount of coverage of their concrete logical design and implementation. Most resource estimation is done at the level of complexity analysis, but actual concrete numbers (of quantum gates, qubits, etc.) can differ by orders of magnitude. The line of work we present here is a formal framework to write, and reason about, quantum algorithms. Specifically, we designed a language, Quipper, with scalability in mind, and we are able to report actual resource counts for seven non-trivial algorithms found in the quantum computer science literature.

Why This Paper Matters

This paper contributes to the Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
It adds a 2014 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
Despite the rich literature on quantum algorithms, there is a surprisingly small amount of coverage of their concrete logical design and implementation.

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.

Become a member Sign in

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

[1] DOI https://doi.org/arXiv:1412.0625 [2] arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.0625 [3] Publisher https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.0625

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0

Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.