Deterministic Quantum Phase Estimation with Linear Circuit Complexity in a Photonic System

Ajay Jayachandran; Akshai T. Krishnan; C. M. Chandrashekar; Kanad Sengupta; M. Midhuna

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Deterministic Quantum Phase Estimation with Linear Circuit Complexity in a Photonic System

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read For phase-gate unitaries with dyadic phases, quantum phase estimation is just copying the eigenstate label: a Hadamard–controlled-Z–Hadamard circuit returns the phase as a classical bit string in O(n) gates, with no inverse quantum Fourier

desk verdict The algebra is right and the experiment is plausible, but the 'O(n) QPE' is really label-copying for a carefully chosen unitary class, so the paper's framing outruns the result. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13404 v1 pith:2TF2APYX submitted 2026-07-15 quant-ph

M. Midhuna , Ajay Jayachandran , Kanad Sengupta , Akshai T. Krishnan , C. M. Chandrashekar This is my paper

classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Lx42.50.Ex

keywords quantumphaseestimationinverseFouriertransformphase-gateunitariescontrolled-Zcircuitcomplexityphotonicqubitspath-polarizationencodingdeterministiccomputing

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper shows that for unitary operators of the form U = P(π)⊗P(π/2)⊗⋯⊗P(π/2^{n−1}) — products of single-qubit phase gates with dyadically scaled phases — the eigenphase of a computational-basis state |c⟩ is exactly the binary fraction 0.c₁…cₙ. Because of that identity, the inverse quantum Fourier transform in standard phase estimation is redundant. The phase estimate is obtained by a circuit of Hadamard gates, controlled-Z gates, and Hadamard gates that copies the label |c⟩ onto the control register. This drops circuit complexity from O(n²) to O(n) and makes the operations deterministic. The authors demonstrate the two-control-qubit case on a photonic system using path- and polarization-encoded qubits.

What carries the argument

The central object is the tensor-product phase-gate unitary U whose eigenvalues on computational basis states are e^{2πi 0.c}. The mechanism is the identity H⊗H-controlled-Z-H⊗H = copy: for each control-target pair, the sequence maps |0⟩|t⟩ to |t⟩|t⟩. Across n pairs, this turns the bit string of the target register into the phase estimate. The paper proves equivalence to standard QPE by noting that the phase-encoded control state after the controlled unitaries is exactly QFT|c⟩, so inverse QFT would recover |c⟩ — but the H-CZ-H circuit reaches the same final state without any Fourier transform.

What would settle it

For U=P(π)⊗P(π/2+δ) with a target eigenstate |01⟩, run the optimized circuit: the control register will read |01⟩ for every δ, while the true eigenphase is (π/2+δ)/2π = 1/4 + δ/2π. Measuring this gap, especially as δ is swept, directly tests whether the dyadic-phase assumption is doing the work; at δ=0 the two agree, at δ≠0 they diverge.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that for U=P(π)⊗P(π/2)⊗⋯⊗P(π/2^{n−1}), the eigenphase of |c₁⋯cₙ⟩ is exactly 0.c₁⋯cₙ in binary. Standard QPE therefore ends with the control register holding the label c. The paper shows the full controlled-U sequence plus IQFT can be replaced by Hadamards on the control register, controlled-Z gates on each control–target pair, and Hadamards again; the final Hadamards collapse the sum to δ_{c,y}, so the control register reads the label. This eliminates the IQFT and reduces gate complexity from O(n²) to O(n). The four-qubit photonic experiment, with two path-encoded control qubits and two polarization-encoded target qubits, reproduces the predicted single-peak coincidence

Load-bearing premise

The protocol's correctness rests on the eigenphase of the target unitary on each computational-basis state being exactly that state's binary label (the dyadic fraction 0.c₁⋯cₙ); if the phase angles deviate from the π/2^j sequence, or if the input is not one of those eigenstates, the circuit still outputs a label but the label is not the phase.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For the structured unitary family, standard QPE's inverse Fourier transform and controlled powers of U can be replaced by n Hadamards, n controlled-Z gates, and n Hadamards, cutting overall gate complexity from O(n²) to O(n).
Phase readout is deterministic for exact eigenstates: the control register is measured in the computational basis and returns the label c — i.e., the eigenphase — with certainty in the ideal case, with no post-selection or feedback.
The circuit decomposes into n independent control–target pairs, so the photonic implementation scales to n qubits as n parallel interferometers, preserving linear resource growth.
The simplification survives as long as the unitary retains the same tensor-product phase hierarchy; the paper states the approach is scalable to higher-dimensional unitaries under that condition.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

An application-minded reader should treat this as a label-copying primitive, not a general phase estimator: the circuit will output the computational label even when the true eigenphase is not the dyadic fraction, so importing it outside the stated unitary family would silently produce wrong phase estimates.
The independent-interferometer decomposition suggests that scaling to larger n is mainly a stabilization problem — n separate interferometers with no cross-talk — rather than a fundamental resource bottleneck; the paper does not itself draw this engineering corollary.
A direct boundary test would detune one phase gate, e.g. P(π/2)→P(π/2+δ), and compare the optimized circuit's output with the eigenphase (π/2+δ)/2π; the circuit is predicted to ignore δ, marking the limits of the class.
If the target register is a superposition of eigenstates, linearity gives the output ∑ α_c |c⟩|c⟩ — an entangled label-state that could serve as a coherent spectral-index register in composite algorithms, though the paper does not explore that use.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my read. The two things you should know: (1) the central equivalence in Algorithms 1 and 2 is correct — I checked the reversed-bit convention and the δ-collapse; (2) the result is a compiled identity, not a new phase-estimation technique. The H–CZ–H circuit copies the computational label from target to control. It gives you the phase only because Eq. (4) defines the eigenphase to literally be the dyadic label. That is fine as a special-purpose shortcut, but it does not generalize to approximate phases or to any U outside the class.

What the paper does well: it gives a clean derivation that standard QPE on this U reduces to QFT of the label, and that the optimized circuit is exactly the same map. That derivation is honest, and the resource comparison — O(n²) down to O(n) for this family — is fair once controlled-U²ᵏ is decomposed. The experimental setup is a real attempt at a deterministic photonic controlled-Z using a Sagnac interferometer, and the 98% source visibility and 93% interferometer visibility are decent numbers for that platform. The 36-projection measurement set is a standard and appropriate way to characterize the output.

Now the soft spots. The paper's own Sec. II.B slips and calls it "quantum state copying" — that is the accurate description. The phase angles in Eq. (4) are chosen so that the unitary's eigenphase equals the computational label, so the circuit's output is trivially a phase estimate. This is not a flaw in the algebra but it is a severe scope limitation. The paper never analyzes what happens for phases not exactly representable, or for arbitrary input states, or for control register size m ≠ n. The experimental 'four-qubit' system is two uncoupled two-qubit gadgets; there is no entanglement between the two interferometers. And the promised comparison with the conventional implementation in Sec. I never appears in Sec. IV — that is a missing baseline, not a minor omission. The reported 'excellent agreement' is based on visual overlap of bars; there is no fidelity or χ².

Who is this for? A reader working on photonic implementations of very specific diagonal unitaries might find the simplified circuit useful. It is not a general QPE result, and it should not be cited as one.

My advice: send it to peer review, but with the expectation of major revision. The algebra deserves to be published — the equivalence is correct and checkable — but the framing must be scaled back, the missing baseline must be added or deleted, and the experimental claims need quantitative support.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a quantum phase estimation (QPE) protocol for the structured diagonal unitary family U = P(π) ⊗ P(π/2) ⊗ ... ⊗ P(π/2^{n−1}). The authors show that, for this family, the standard QPE circuit with controlled-U^{2^k} operations and an inverse quantum Fourier transform can be replaced by a circuit consisting only of Hadamard gates, controlled-Z gates, and a final Hadamard layer, reducing the gate complexity from O(n²) to O(n). They prove the equivalence of the two circuits and report a four-qubit photonic implementation using polarization and path encoding, with experimental results for n = 2. The paper claims that the scheme is deterministic, scalable to larger systems under the same structural assumption, and in good agreement with theory.

Significance. The algebraic derivation in Sec. II is internally sound: Algorithm 1 correctly factors the phase accumulated in standard QPE into the QFT basis state, and Algorithm 2's delta-collapse identity is a valid proof of equivalence. The photonic implementation is also a clean demonstration of deterministic controlled-Z gates in a hybrid path-polarization architecture, which is a genuine experimental strength relative to probabilistic KLM-type approaches. However, the central novelty is a compiled circuit identity for a unitary whose eigenphases are, by construction, exactly the computational labels of the target register. The optimized H–CZ–H circuit contains no U-dependent phase information and would return the same output for any diagonal unitary with a computational eigenbasis, regardless of its eigenvalues. The paper's framing as a general QPE algorithm that 'reduces complexity' therefore overstates the scope of the contribution. If reframed as a specialized, compiled phase-estimation protocol for a fixed structured unitary, the result is useful, but as presented the claim that an O(n) QPE algorithm has been found for a broad class is not supported.

major comments (3)

[Sec. II.B, Algorithm 2 (Fig. 2)] The optimized circuit H^{⊗n}–CZ–H^{⊗n} is independent of U: it maps |0⟩|c⟩ to |c⟩|c⟩ for any unitary that is diagonal in the computational basis, regardless of its eigenvalues. The identification with phase estimation rests entirely on Eq. (4), where the eigenphase of U on |c⟩ is stipulated to be exactly 0.c₁…cₙ. If the phase angles deviated from π/2^j — for example, P(π+ε) ⊗ P(π/2+ε) — the circuit would still return |c⟩ while the true phase would be shifted, so it would no longer estimate the phase. Thus the O(n²)→O(n) reduction is a consequence of the label–phase dictionary being hard-coded into the unitary class, not of a new generic phase-estimation technique. The abstract and conclusion should be reframed to state this limitation explicitly.
[Sec. I and Sec. IV.B] The Introduction promises that Sec. IV will 'compare the performance of the proposed protocol with the conventional implementation.' No such comparison is reported. Figure 5 compares the measured coincidence counts only against the theoretical predictions of the optimized circuit; there is no standard-QPE baseline, no fidelity metric, and no quantitative assessment of the claimed advantage. Either the promised comparison should be added, or the claim should be removed from the Introduction.
[Secs. II.A–II.B] The derivation assumes that every eigenphase is exactly representable as an n-bit binary fraction and that the control register has exactly n qubits. The standard QPE algorithm is valuable precisely because it handles approximate phases and variable precision; the optimized circuit has no such behavior. If φ is not an integer multiple of 1/2^n, the H–CZ–H circuit still outputs the label |c⟩, which is not the phase. The manuscript does not analyze this case, nor does it treat target states in superposition of multiple eigenstates (beyond linear combinations of exact eigenstates) or control registers with m ≠ n. These are load-bearing limitations for the claim that this is a phase-estimation algorithm, and they should be stated and analyzed in the paper.

minor comments (5)

[General notation] Eq. (2) uses m for the control-register size and n for the target size, but the optimized construction implicitly sets m = n. Please define this consistently and state that the protocol is presented for m = n.
[Algorithm 1, Step 6] The phrase 'the state obtained in Step 5 is exactly the quantum Fourier transform of the computational basis state' depends on a specific QFT qubit-ordering convention. Please specify the convention (e.g., standard QFT with bit reversal) so the reader can verify the correspondence without decoding the notation.
[Figure 5 caption] The caption refers to '36 polarization projection states,' but the measurements are projection settings onto states. Also, the text mentions quantum state tomography in the setup, but no tomographic reconstruction of the output state is reported. Clarify.
[References] Reference [11] appears incomplete: it cites Hales and Hallgren with an odd conference year and page number. Please update the reference.
[Conclusion] The sentence 'The successful experimental realisation ... validates the theoretical framework' should be softened to 'is consistent with' or 'demonstrates,' since the experiment does not validate the general QPE claim, only the compiled identity for n = 2.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The optimized H–CZ–H circuit copies the target label; it counts as phase estimation only because Eq. (4) makes the eigenphase equal to that label by construction.

self definitional [Sec. II.B (Optimised Computational Scheme), with Eq. (4) and Algorithm 2]
"The structure of the unitary U - specifically, the fact that its eigenvalues are already encoded as phase factors of the form e^{2πi(0.c_k···c_n)} - allows us to bypass the IQFT stage entirely."

The H⊗n–CZ–H⊗n circuit maps |0^n⟩|c⟩ to |c⟩|c⟩ for any unitary diagonal in the computational basis, independently of the phase angles π/2^j. Thus the output is the input label c. The identification of this output with the eigenphase φ = 0.c holds only because Eq. (4) defines U's phases so that φ equals the label. If any phase angle were perturbed off the dyadic grid, the same circuit would still output |c⟩|c⟩ while the true eigenphase shifts, so it would no longer estimate the phase. The claimed O(n) QPE therefore reduces to an identity between the output and a quantity that was already fixed by the definition of the unitary.

full rationale

The algebraic derivation inside the paper is sound: Algorithm 1 correctly factors the standard QPE phase–kickback state into a QFT of the label, and Algorithm 2's H–CZ–H identity is a valid and externally checkable circuit identity. There are no fitted parameters, no statistically forced predictions, and no load-bearing self-citations; the references to the authors' prior photonic quantum-walk work support the experimental platform but are not used to prove the central circuit equivalence. The circularity is at the level of the central claim's interpretation: for the special unitary family in Eq. (4), the eigenphase of |c⟩ is, by definition, the binary label 0.c1…cn. The optimized circuit simply copies that label, without ever applying U or reading its phase. Consequently, the 'phase estimate' is the input state's label, made equal to the phase by the choice of gate angles in Eq. (4), rather than by information extracted from U. The paper's abstract and conclusion frame this as a general O(n) QPE algorithm and claim 'excellent agreement' with phase-estimation predictions, but the experimental results mainly verify the expected copying/tomography behavior for exact dyadic phases. This is partial circularity of the central novelty, not a defect in the internal algebra, so it receives a 6 rather than a higher score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theory contributes one structural choice (the dyadic phase-gate family, Eq. 4) and one elementary permutation of standard circuit identities; the experiment adds domain assumptions about gate ideality. No parameters are fitted to data. The load-bearing choices: phase angles chosen so the eigenphase is exactly the n-bit label, control register sized m = n to avoid phase leakage, and ideal-gate assumptions for the photonic CZ.

free parameters (2)

Phase angles of U (π/2^j) = π, π/2, …, π/2^(n−1)
The family (Eq. 4) is defined with these exact dyadic angles so that the eigenphase of |c⟩ equals the n-bit binary label 0.c₁…cₙ. The entire O(n) reduction and the exact deterministic output depend on this exactness; any deviation (e.g., a phase gate with θ ≠ π/2^j) breaks the protocol, and the paper analyzes only the exact case.
Control register size m = n (target size) = m = n
Chosen so every eigenphase is exactly representable without phase leakage; the paper treats only this exact case and does not analyze m < n, approximate phases, or noise-induced leakage.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Eigenstates of U are exactly the computational basis states |c⟩, c ∈ {0,1}ⁿ
The protocol's output is the computational label of the input (Alg. 2, Step 4). For a superposition input, linearity gives a coherent copy of the label superposition, which is a phase estimate only because the basis states are eigenstates and phases are labels. Invoked in Sec. II.A Step 3 and Sec. II.B.
domain assumption Eigenphase is exactly φ = 0.c₁…cₙ (n-bit representable), so no phase leakage
The 'completely deterministic output distributions... without phase leakage' claim (Sec. IV.B) holds only because U's angles are dyadic and m = n; the paper provides no analysis of the approximate case.
standard math Hadamard orthogonality: Σ_y (−1)^{x·(c+y)} = 2ⁿ δ_{c,y}
Used in Algorithm 2 Step 4 to collapse the double sum; standard identity.
standard math QFT phase-factorization: the post-controlled-U state is exactly QFT|c⟩
Standard QFT decomposition; asserted in Alg. 1 Step 6 without proof.
domain assumption The QHQ-in-reflected-arm plate sequence implements ideal CZ between path and polarization, and the 50:50 BS implements ideal H
The experimental claims of deterministic controlled operations and 'excellent agreement' rest on these gates behaving ideally; only interferometer visibility ~93% is reported, with no gate fidelity or calibration data (Sec. IV.B).
ad hoc to paper Scalability: structure is preserved for larger n with no error accumulation
The claim 'it is scalable to higher-dimensional unitaries, provided the underlying structure is preserved' (Abstract, Sec. II.B) is asserted without analysis of how gate errors, visibility, or crosstalk scale with n.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deterministic Quantum Phase Estimation with Linear Circuit Complexity in a Photonic System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2TF2APYX

@misc{pith2026260713404,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deterministic Quantum Phase Estimation with Linear Circuit Complexity in a Photonic System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2TF2APYX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13404}
}

abstract

Quantum algorithms solve certain computational problems faster than the best known classical algorithms. Many algorithms, including Shor's for factoring, Grover's for unstructured search, and the HHL for solving linear systems, rely on quantum phase estimation (QPE) as a fundamental subroutine. The QPE protocol proceeds through the initialization of a control register in a uniform superposition, controlled unitary evolution encoding the eigenphase, and a final inverse quantum Fourier transform followed by measurement to extract the phase. Here, we address a special class of unitary operators that frequently appear in quantum Fourier transform-based protocols, cyclic group representations, and periodically evolving quantum systems. We introduce a QPE algorithm that successfully reduces the circuit complexity from $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$ to $\mathcal{O}(n)$ for a special class of unitary operators and implement it on a four-qubit photonic system. The four-qubit system is realised using a photon pair, with two qubits encoded in its polarization degree of freedom and the remaining two in its path modes. In contrast to previous photonic implementations of QPE based on dual-rail encoding and KLM protocol, where controlled operations are inherently probabilistic and thus reduce the overall success probability of phase estimation, our scheme is fully deterministic. Moreover, it is scalable to higher-dimensional unitaries, provided the underlying structure of the unitaries is preserved.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13404 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Optimised Quantum Phase Estimation Circuit for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (a) Standard circuit for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Experimental setup for the implementation of the two-control, two-target quantum phase estimation algorithm ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of the experimentally measured and theoretically expected normalised coincidence counts for the complete [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

[1]

Shor, Algorithms for Quantum Computation: Discrete Logarithms and Factoring, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp

Peter W. Shor, Algorithms for Quantum Computation: Discrete Logarithms and Factoring, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 124–134 (1994)

1994
[2]

Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd, Quantum Algorithm for Linear Systems of Equations, Phys

Aram W. Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd, Quantum Algorithm for Linear Systems of Equations, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 150502 (2009)

2009
[3]

Nielsen and Isaac L

Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang, Quantum Com- putation and Quantum Information, Cambridge Univer- sity Press (2000)

2000
[4]

53–74 (2002)

Gilles Brassard, Peter Høyer, Michele Mosca, and Alain Tapp, Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation, Contemporary Mathematics, Vol.305, pp. 53–74 (2002)

2002
[5]

Abrams and Seth Lloyd, Quantum algorithm providing exponential speed increase for finding eigenval- ues and eigenvectors, Physical Review Letters, Vol.83, No

Daniel S. Abrams and Seth Lloyd, Quantum algorithm providing exponential speed increase for finding eigenval- ues and eigenvectors, Physical Review Letters, Vol.83, No. 24, p. 5162 (1999)

1999
[6]

820–831 (1998)

Gilles Brassard, Peter Høyer, and Alain Tapp, Quantum counting, Automata, Languages and Programming: 25th 10 International Colloquium, pp. 820–831 (1998)

1998
[7]

Seth Lloyd, Masoud Mohseni, and Patrick Rebentrost, Quantum principal component analysis, Nature Physics, Vol.10, No. 9, pp. 631–633 (2014)

2014
[8]

Nathan Wiebe, Daniel Braun, and Seth Lloyd, Quantum algorithm for data fitting, Physical Review Letters, Vol. 109, No. 5, p. 050505 (2012)

2012

Show all 50 references

[9]

Seth Lloyd, Masoud Mohseni, and Patrick Rebentrost, Quantum algorithms for supervised and unsupervised machine learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:1307.0411 (2013)

2013 arXiv
[10]

Coppersmith, An approximate Fourier transform use- ful in quantum factoring, IBM Research Report, p

D. Coppersmith, An approximate Fourier transform use- ful in quantum factoring, IBM Research Report, p. RC– 19642 (1994)

1994
[11]

Hales and S

L. Hales and S. Hallgren, An improved quantum Fourier transform algorithm and applications, 2013 IEEE 54th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Sci- ence, p. 515 (2000)

2013
[12]

Hongkang Ni, Haoya Li, and Lexing Ying, On low-depth algorithms for quantum phase estimation, Quantum, Vol. 7, p. 1165 (2023)

2023
[13]

Lin Lin and Yu Tong, Heisenberg-Limited Ground-State Energy Estimation for Early Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computers, PRX Quantum, Vol.3, No. 1, p. 010318 (2022)

2022
[14]

Zhiyan Ding and Lin Lin, Even Shorter Quantum Circuit for Phase Estimation on Early Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computers with Applications to Ground-State Energy Estimation, PRX Quantum, Vol.4, No. 2, p. 020331 (2023)

2023
[15]

566 (2021)

Patrick Rall, Faster Coherent Quantum Algorithms for Phase, Energy, and Amplitude Estimation, Quantum, Vol.5, p. 566 (2021)

2021
[16]

Mande and Ronald de Wolf, Tight Bounds for Quantum Phase Estimation and Related Problems, 31st Annual European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA 2023), pp

Nikhil S. Mande and Ronald de Wolf, Tight Bounds for Quantum Phase Estimation and Related Problems, 31st Annual European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA 2023), pp. 81:1–81:16 (2023)

2023
[17]

A. Yu. Kitaev, Quantum measurements and the Abelian Stabilizer Problem, arXiv:quant-ph/9511026 (1995)

1995 arXiv
[18]

Richard Cleve, Artur Ekert, Chiara Macchiavello, and Michele Mosca, Quantum Algorithms Revisited, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A454, 339–354 (1998)

1998
[19]

Miroslav Dobšíček, Göran Johansson, Vitaly Shumeiko, and Göran Wendin, Arbitrary accuracy iterative quan- tum phase estimation algorithm using a single ancillary qubit: A two-qubit benchmark, Phys. Rev. A76, 030306 (2007)

2007
[20]

Griffiths and Chi-Sheng Niu, Semiclassical Fourier Transform for Quantum Computation, Phys

Robert B. Griffiths and Chi-Sheng Niu, Semiclassical Fourier Transform for Quantum Computation, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 3228–3231 (1996)

1996
[21]

Nathan Wiebe and Christopher Granade, Efficient Bayesian Phase Estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 010503 (2016)

2016
[22]

Kentaro Yamamoto, Samuel Duffield, Yuta Kikuchi, and David Muñoz Ramo, Demonstrating Bayesian quantum phase estimation with quantum error detection, Phys. Rev. Research6, 013221 (2024)

2024
[23]

ShelbyKimmel, GuangHaoLow, andTheodoreJ.Yoder, Robust Calibration of a Universal Single-Qubit Gate-Set via Robust Phase Estimation, Phys. Rev. A92, 062315 (2015)

2015
[24]

Quantum Technol.9, e202500683 (2026)

Alok Shukla and Prakash Vedula, Toward Practical Quantum Phase Estimation: A Modular, Scalable, and Adaptive Approach, Adv. Quantum Technol.9, e202500683 (2026)

2026
[25]

Valentin Gebhart, Augusto Smerzi, and Luca Pezzé, Bayesian quantum multiphase estimation algorithm, Physical Review Applied, Vol.16, No. 1, p. 014035 (2021)

2021
[26]

Svore, Matthew B

Krysta M. Svore, Matthew B. Hastings, and Michael Freedman, Faster phase estimation, Quant. Inf. Comp. Vol.14, No. 3&4, pp. 306-328 (2013)

2013
[27]

Campbell, Ran- domized Quantum Algorithm for Statistical Phase Es- timation, Physical Review Letters, Vol.129, No

Kianna Wan, Mario Berta, and Earl T. Campbell, Ran- domized Quantum Algorithm for Statistical Phase Es- timation, Physical Review Letters, Vol.129, No. 3, p. 030503 (2022)

2022
[28]

O’Brien, Brian Tarasinski, and Barbara M

Thomas E. O’Brien, Brian Tarasinski, and Barbara M. Terhal, Quantum phase estimation of multiple eigenval- ues for small-scale (noisy) experiments, New Journal of Physics, Vol.21, No. 2, p. 023022 (2019)

2019
[29]

Somma, Quantum eigenvalue estimation via time series analysis, New Journal of Physics, Vol.21, No

Rolando D. Somma, Quantum eigenvalue estimation via time series analysis, New Journal of Physics, Vol.21, No. 12, p. 123025 (2019)

2019
[30]

107441 (2020)

François Chapeau-Blondeau and Etienne Belin, Fourier- transform quantum phase estimation with quantum phase noise, Signal Processing, Vol.170, p. 107441 (2020)

2020
[31]

Masahito Hayashi, Special functions in quantum phase estimation, Proceedingsofthe16thInternationalSympo- sium on Orthogonal Polynomials, Special Functions and Applications (OPSFA-16) (2023)

2023
[32]

Xiao-Ling Wang, Yu-Huai Luo, Hui-Lin Huang, Ming- Cheng Chen, Zheng-En Su, Chao Liu, Chao Chen, Wei Li, Yu-Qi Fang, Xi Jianget al., 18-Qubit Entanglement with Six Photons’ Three Degrees of Freedom, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 260502 (2018)

2018
[33]

R. C. Souza, W. F. Balthazar, and J. A. O. Huguenin, Universal Quantum Gates for Path Photonic Qubit, Quantum Inf. Process.21, 68 (2022)

2022
[34]

Shivani Singh, Prateek Chawla, Anupam Sarkar & C. M. Chandrashekar, Universal quantum computing using single-particle discrete-time quantum walk, Scientific Re- ports volume11, Article number: 11551 (2021)

2021
[35]

Prateek Chawla, Shivani Singh, Aman Agarwal, Sarvesh Srinivasan & C. M. Chandrashekar , Multi-qubit quan- tum computing using discrete-time quantum walks on closedgraphs, ScientificReportsvolume13, Articlenum- ber: 12078 (2023)

2023
[36]

Kanad Sengupta, S. P. Dinesh, K. Muhammed Shafi, Soumya Asokan, and C. M. Chandrashekar, Experimen- tal realization of universal quantum gates and a six-qubit entangled state using a photonic quantum walk, Phys. Rev. Applied24, 024012 (2025)

2025
[37]

Mayalakshmi Kolangatt, Anirudh Verma , Sujai Matta, Kanad Sengupta, and C. M. Chandrashekar, Four-qubit photonic system for publicly verifiable quantum random numbers and generation of public and private key, Phys. Rev. A110, 032615(2024)

2024
[38]

D.Makarov, Theoryforthebeamsplitterinquantumop- tics: Quantum entanglement of photons and their statis- tics, HOM effect, Mathematics10, 4794 (2022)

2022
[39]

R. A. Campos, B. E. A. Saleh, and M. C. Teich, Photon statistics at beam splitters: An essential tool in quantum information and teleportation, Phys. Rev. A40, 1371– 1384 (1989)

1989
[40]

Bertocchi, O

G. Bertocchi, O. Alibart, D. B. Ostrowsky, S. Tanzilli, and P. Baldi, Single-photon Sagnac interferometer, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.39, 1011–1016 (2006)

2006
[41]

193– 204 (2019)

András Gilyén, Yuan Su, Guang Hao Low, and Nathan 11 Wiebe, Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum ma- trix arithmetics, Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 193– 204 (2019)

2019
[42]

Martyn, Zane M

John M. Martyn, Zane M. Rossi, Andrew K. Tan, and Isaac L. Chuang, Grand unification of quantum algo- rithms, PRX Quantum, Vol.2, No. 4, p. 040203 (2021)

2021
[43]

Sean Greenaway, William Pol, and Sukin Sim, A case study against QSVT: assessment of quantum phase esti- mation improved by signal processing techniques, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01396 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[44]

Xi Lu, Unbiased quantum phase estimation, Quantum Information and Computation, Vol.23, No. 1&2, pp. 0016–0026 (2023)

2023
[45]

872 (2022)

Noah Linden and Ronald de Wolf, Average-case verifica- tion of the quantum Fourier transform enables worst-case phase estimation, Quantum, Vol.6, p. 872 (2022)

2022
[46]

Bužek, R

V. Bužek, R. Derka, and S. Massar, Optimal Quantum Clocks, Phys.Rev.Lett., Vol.82, Issue10, pp.2207–2210 (1999)

1999
[47]

Luis and J

A. Luis and J. Peřina, Optimum phase-shift estimation and the quantum description of the phase difference, Physical Review A, Vol.54, No. 5, p. 4564 (1996)

1996
[48]

Wojciech Rządkowski and Rafał Demkowicz-Dobrzański, Discrete-to-continuous transition in quantum phase es- timation, Physical Review A, Vol.96, No. 3, p. 032319 (2017)

2017
[49]

Berry and Howard M

Dominic W. Berry and Howard M. Wiseman, Optimal states and almost optimal adaptive measurements for quantum interferometry, Physical Review Letters, Vol. 85, No. 24, p. 5098 (2000)

2000
[50]

Osborne, Karl G

Kristan Temme, Tobias J. Osborne, Karl G. Vollbrecht, David Poulin, and Frank Verstraete, Quantum metropo- lis sampling, Nature, Vol.471, No. 7336, pp. 87–90 (2011)

2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Shor, Algorithms for Quantum Computation: Discrete Logarithms and Factoring, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp

Peter W. Shor, Algorithms for Quantum Computation: Discrete Logarithms and Factoring, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 124–134 (1994)

1994

[2] [2]

Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd, Quantum Algorithm for Linear Systems of Equations, Phys

Aram W. Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd, Quantum Algorithm for Linear Systems of Equations, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 150502 (2009)

2009

[3] [3]

Nielsen and Isaac L

Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang, Quantum Com- putation and Quantum Information, Cambridge Univer- sity Press (2000)

2000

[4] [4]

53–74 (2002)

Gilles Brassard, Peter Høyer, Michele Mosca, and Alain Tapp, Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation, Contemporary Mathematics, Vol.305, pp. 53–74 (2002)

2002

[5] [5]

Abrams and Seth Lloyd, Quantum algorithm providing exponential speed increase for finding eigenval- ues and eigenvectors, Physical Review Letters, Vol.83, No

Daniel S. Abrams and Seth Lloyd, Quantum algorithm providing exponential speed increase for finding eigenval- ues and eigenvectors, Physical Review Letters, Vol.83, No. 24, p. 5162 (1999)

1999

[6] [6]

820–831 (1998)

Gilles Brassard, Peter Høyer, and Alain Tapp, Quantum counting, Automata, Languages and Programming: 25th 10 International Colloquium, pp. 820–831 (1998)

1998

[7] [7]

Seth Lloyd, Masoud Mohseni, and Patrick Rebentrost, Quantum principal component analysis, Nature Physics, Vol.10, No. 9, pp. 631–633 (2014)

2014

[8] [8]

Nathan Wiebe, Daniel Braun, and Seth Lloyd, Quantum algorithm for data fitting, Physical Review Letters, Vol. 109, No. 5, p. 050505 (2012)

2012