Quick Navigation
Topics
Trapped Ion Quantum Computing
Multi-qubit Toffoli with exponentially fewer T gates
arXiv
Authors: David Gosset, Robin Kothari, Chenyi Zhang
Year
2025
Paper ID
51609
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
154
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Prior work of Beverland et al. has shown that any exact Clifford+T implementation of the n-qubit Toffoli gate must use at least n T gates. Here we show how to get away with exponentially fewer T gates, at the cost of incurring a tiny 1/poly(n) error that can be neglected in most practical situations. More precisely, the n-qubit Toffoli gate can be implemented to within error ε in the diamond distance by a randomly chosen Clifford+T circuit with at most O\(log(1/ε\)) T gates. We also give a matching Ω\(log(1/ε\)) lower bound that establishes optimality, and we show that any purely unitary implementation achieving even constant error must use Ω(n) T gates. We also extend our sampling technique to implement other Boolean functions. Finally, we describe upper and lower bounds on the T-count of Boolean functions in terms of non-adaptive parity decision tree complexity and its randomized analogue.
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.
- Prior work of Beverland et al.
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.