arxiv:quant-ph/ v1 18 Dec 2000

Transcription

1 Effets of Imperfet Gate Operations in Shor s rime Fatorization Algorithm Hao Guo 1,, Gui-Lu Long 1,,3,4,5 and Yang Sun 1,,6,7 1 Department of hysis, Tsinghua University, Beijing Key Laboratory for Quantum Information and Measurements, MOE 3 Institute of Theoretial hysis, Chinese Aademy of Sienes, Beijing ,.R. China 4 Centre for Nulear Theory, Lanzhou National Laboratory of Heavy Ions Chinese Aademy of Sienes, Lanzhou ,.R. China 5 Center of Atomi, Moleular and Nanosienes, Tsinghua University, Beijing Department of hysis, Xuzhou Normal University, Xuzhou, Jiangsu Department of hysis and Astronomy, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, U.S.A. (June 4, 018) arxiv:uant-ph/001088v1 18 De 000 The effets of imperfet gate operations in implementation of Shor s prime fatorization algorithm are investigated. The gate imperfetions may be lassified into three ategories: the systemati error, the random error, and the one with ombined errors. It is found that Shor s algorithm is robust against the systemati errors but is vulnerable to the random errors. Error threshold is given to the algorithm for a given number N to be fatorized. ACS numbers: Lx, , h I. INTRODUCTION Shor s fatorization algorithm [1] is a very important uantum algorithm, through whih one has demonstrated the power of uantum omputers. It has greatly promoted the worldwide researh in uantum omputing over the past few years. In pratie, however, uantum systems are subjet to influene of environment, and in addition, uantum gate operations are often imperfet [,3]. Environment influene on the system an ause deoherene of uantum states, and gate imperfetion leads to errors in uantum omputing. Thanks to Shor s another important work, in whih he showed that uantum error orrelation an be orreted [4]. With uantum error orretion sheme, errors arising from both deoherene and imperfetion an be orreted. There have been several works on the effets of deoherene on Shor s algorithm. Sun et al. disussed the effet of deoherene on the algorithm by modeling the environment [5]. alma studied the effets of both deoherene and gate imperfetion in ion trap uantum omputers [6]. There have also been many other studies on the uantum algorithm [7 10]. The error orretion sheme uses available resoures. Thus it is important to study the robustness of the algorithm itself so that one an strike a balane between the amount of uantum error orretion and the amount of ubits available. In this paper, we investigate the effets of gate imperfetion on the effiieny of Shor s fatorization algorithm. The results may guide us in pratie to suppress deliberately those errors that influene the algorithm most sensitively. For those errors that do not affet the algorithm very muh, we may ignore them as a good approximation. In addition, study of the robustness of algorithm to errors is important where one an not apply the uantum error orretion at all, for instane, in ases that there are not enough ubits available. The paper is organized as follows. Setion II is devoted to an outline of Shor s algorithm and different error s modes. In Setion III, we present the results. Finally, a short summary is given in Setion IV. II. SHOR S ALGORITHM AND ERROR S MODES Shor s algorithm onsists of the following steps: 1) preparing a superposition of evenly distributed states ψ = 1 1 a 0, where = L and N N with N being the number to be fatorized; a=0 1

2 ) implementing y a modn and putting the results into the nd register ψ 1 = 1 1 a y a modn ; 3) making a measument on the nd register; The state of the register is then a=0 1 A φ = jr+l z = y l = y jr+l modn A+1 j=0 [ ] where j l r = A. ( 4) performing disrete Fourier transformation (DFT) on the first register φ 3 = f ) () z, where f () = r r 1 ( ) πi(jr+l) exp = j=0 r e πil r 1 ( πijr exp j=0 ). This term is nonzero only when = k r, with k = 0,1,...r 1, whih orrespond to the peaks of the distribution in the measured results, and thus this term beomes f() = 1 r e πil. The Fourier transformation is important beause it makes the state in the first register the same for all possible values ( in the ) nd register. The DFT is onstruted by two basi gate operations: the single bit gate operation A j = 1 1 1, whih is also alled the Walsh-Hadmard 1 1 transformation, and the -bits ontrolled rotation B jk = e iθ jk with θ jk = π k j. The gate seuene for implementing DFT is (A 1 )(B 1 A )...(B 0 1 B 0...B 01 A 0 ). Errors an our in both A j and B jk. A j is atually a rotation about y-axis through π A j (θ) = e ī h Syθ = Ios( θ ( os( ) isin(θ )σ θ y = ) sin(θ ) ) sin( θ ) os(θ ). If the gate operation is not perfet, the rotation is not exatly π. In this ase, A j is a rotation of π +δ A j (δ) = 1 ( ) os(δ) sin(δ) (sin(δ)+os(δ)). sin(δ) + os(δ) os(δ) sin(δ) If δ is very small, we have: A j (θ) = 1 ( ) 1 δ (1+δ). 1+δ+ 1 δ Similarly, errors in B jk an be written as B jk = e i(θ jk+δ) With these errors, the DFT beomes a 1 1 =0 / +δ)a (1+δ ) = 1 1 π i( e =0 e i(π +δ)a (1+δ ), (1)

3 where δ and δ denote the error of A j and B jk, respetively. Let us assume the following error modes: 1) systemati errors, where δ or δ in (1) an only have systemati errors (EM 1 ); ) random errors (EM ), for whih we assume that δ or δ an only be random errors of the Gaussian or the uniform type; 3) oexistene of both systemati and random errors (EM 3 ). In the next setion, we shall present the results of numerial simulations and disuss the effets of imperfet gate operation on the DFT algorithm, and thus on the Shor s algorithm. III. INFLUENCE OF IMERFECT GATE OERATIONS We first disuss the influene of imperfet gate operations in the initial preparation A l 1 A l...a = 1 ( δ 1 ( 0 1 )) ( δ ( 0 1 ))... ( δ n ( 0 1 )). = 1 1 l i i 1i...i n=0 1i...i n + 1 n l R=1 δ 1 n i ( i 1i...i n=0 1..i R 1 0i R+1..i n i 1..i R 1 1i R+1..i n If the errors are systemati, for instane, aused by the inaurate alibration of the rotations, then δ 1 = δ =... = δ n = δ. In this ase, we an write the nd term as ψ = 1 l δ 1 i 1i...i n=0 (s n) i 1 i...i n, where s stands for the number of 1 s, and s n = s (n s) is the differene in the number of 1 s and 0 s. Thus the results after the first proedure is 1 L 1 ( a +δ(s n) a ) = 1 l l a=0 (1+δ a ) a. () a=0 This implies that after the proedure, the amplitude of eah state is no longer eual, but have slight differene. Combining the effet in the initialization and in the DFT, we have where δ = δ +δ a. In the DFT, we have (1+δ a )(1+δ )e i(π +δ )a. = (1+δ )e i(π +δ )a, r ψ 1 r 1 =0 j=0 (1+δ j )e i(π +δ j )(jr+l), where we have rewrite δ as δ j here. Let denote the probability of getting the state after we perform a measurement, we have = r r 1 = r r 1 m=0 k=0 m (1+δ m )(1+δ k )e k π i( +δ m )(mr+l) e i(π +δ k )(kr+l) (1+δ m )(1+δ k )os[ π r(m k)+(mr +l)δ m (kr+l)δ k] (3) From E. (3), we find that after the last measurement, eah state an be extrated with a probability whih is nonzero, and the offset l an t be eliminated. E. (3) is very ompliated, so we will make some predigestions to disuss different error modes for onveniene. Generally speaking, the influene of exponential error δ j is more remarkable than δ j, so we an omit the error δ j, thus DFT φ = r 1 π r i( =0 j=0 e +δ j )(jr+l). 3

4 A. Case 1 If only systemati errors (EM 1 ) are onsidered, namely, all the δ j s are eual, then f() an be given analytially f() = = r r 1 j=0 e i(π +δ)(jr+l) r eil(π +δ) 1 e i(π +δ) 1 e i(π +δ)r The relative probability of finding is and if = k r, then = f() = r sin ( δ ) sin ( πr +δr), = rsin ( δ ) sin ( δr ). (4) It an be easily seen that lim δ 0 = 1 r, whih is just the ase that no error is onsidered. When δ takes ertain values, say, δ = r (k r )π where k is an integer, then the summation in E. (4) is on longer valid. In our simulation, δ does not take these values. Here we onsider the ase where = 7 = 18 and r = 4. For omparisons, we have drawn the relative probability for obtaining state in Fig.1. for this given example. We have found the following results: (i) When δ is small, the errors do hardly influene the final result, for instane when = k r, then lim rsin ( δ = lim ) δ 0 δ 0 sin ( δr ) = 1 r. The probability distribution is almost idential to those without errors. (ii) Let us inrease δ gradually, from Fig., we see that a gradual hange in the probability distribution takes plae. (Here, we again onsider the relative probabilities) When δ is inreased to ertain values, the positions of peaks hange greatly. For instane at δ =, there appears a peak at =17, whereas it is = 0 when no systemati errors are present. In general, the influene of systemati errors on the algorithm is a shift of the peak positions. This influenes the final results diretly. B. Case When both random errors and systemati errors are present, we add random errors to the simulation. To see the effet of different mode of random errors, we use two random number generators. One is the Gaussian mode and the other is the uniform mode. In this ase, the error has the form δ = δ 0 +s, where δ 0 is the systemati error. s has a probability distribution with respet to, depending on the uniform or the Gaussian distribution. When δ 0 = 0, we have only random errors whih is our errormode. When δ 0 0, we have error mode 3. For the uniform distribution, s ±s max u(0,1) where u(0,1) is evenly distributed in [0,1]. s max indiates the maximum deviation from δ 0. For Gaussian distribution, s N(0,σ 0 ). Through the figure, we see the following: (1) When only random errors are present (δ 0 = 0), the peak positions are not affeted by these random errors. However, different random error modes ause similar results. The results for uniform random error mode are shown in Fig.3. For the uniform distribution error mode, with inreasing δ max, the final probability distribution of the final results beome irregular. In partiular, when δ max is very large, all the patterns are destroyed and is hardly reognizable. Many unexpeted small peaks appear. For the Gaussian distribution error mode, as shown in Fig.4, the influene of the error is more serious. This is beause in Gaussian distribution, there is no ut-off of errors. Large errors an our although their probability is small. The influene of σ 0 on the final results is also sensitive, beause it determines the shape of the distribution. When σ 0 inreases, the final probability distribution beomes very messy. A small hange in σ 0 an ause a big hange in the final results. () When δ 0 0, whih orrespondsto error mode 3, the effet is seen as to shift the positions of the peaks in addition to the influenes of the random errors. 4

5 IV. SUMMARY To summarize, we have analyzed the errors in Shor s fatorization algorithm. It has been seen that the effet of the systemati errors is to shift the positions of the peaks, whereas the random errors hange the shape of the probability distribution. For systemati errors, the shape of the distribution of the final results is hardly destroyed, though displaed. We an still use the result with several trial guesses to obtain the right results beause the peak positions are shifted only slightly. However, the random errors are detrimental to the algorithm and should be redued as muh as possible. It is different from the ase with Grover s algorithm where systemati errors are disastrous while random errors are less harmful [9]. [1].W. Shor, roeedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Siene, edited by S. Goldwasser (IEEE Computer Soiety ress, Los Alamitos, CA, 1994) p.14. [] A. Ekert and R. Jozsa, Rev. Mod. hys. 68 (1996) 733. [3] W.G. Unruh, hys. Rev A51 (1995) 99. [4] I. Chuang and R. laflamme, Quantum error orretion by odding (1995) uant-ph/ [5] C.. Sun, H. Zhan and X.F. Liu, hys. Rew. A58 (1998) [6] G.M. alma, K.A. Suominen and A.K. Ekert, ro. R. So. London, A 45 (1996) 567. [7] R.. Feynman, Int. J. Theo. hys., 1 (198) 467. [8] D. Deutsh, ro. R. So. Land. A 400 (1985) 97. [9] L.K. Grover, hys. Rev, Lett, 79 (1997) 35. [10] G.L. Long, Y.S. Li, W.L. Zhang, C.C. Tu, hys. Rev. A 61 (000) [11] L.K. Grover, hys. Rev. Lett, 80 (1998) 439. Figure Captions: Fig.1. Relative probability for finding state in the absene of errors. Fig.. The same as Fig.1. with systemati errors. In sub-figures (1), (), (3), (4), δ are 0.0, 0.03, respetively. In sub-figure (4), the urve with solid irles(with higher peaks) is the result with δ = 0.1, and the one without solid irles(with lower peaks) denotes the result with δ = Fig.3. The same as Fig.1. with uniform random errors. In sub-figures (1), (), (3), (4), s max are set to 0.01, 0.03,, 0.1 respetively. Fig.4. The same as Fig.1. with Gaussian random errors and systemati errors. In sub-figures (1), (), and (3) τ are set to 0.01, 0.03 and respetively, and δ 0 = 0(without systemati errors). In sub-figure (4), both systemati and random Gaussian errors exist, where δ 0 = 0.33, τ =

6 p

7 0.30 (1) 0.30 () (3) (4)

8 (1) () (3) 0 (4)

9 (1) 0.08 () (3) (4)