We introduce a quantum algorithm to perform the Laplace transform on quantum computers. Already, the quantum Fourier transform (QFT) is the cornerstone of many quantum algorithms, but the Laplace transform or its discrete version has not seen any efficient implementation on quantum computers due to its dissipative nature and hence non-unitary dynamics. However, a recent work has shown an efficient implementation for certain cases on quantum computers using the Taylor series. Unlike previous work, our work provides a completely different algorithm for doing Laplace Transform using Quantum Eigenvalue Transformation and Lap-LCHS, very efficiently at points which form an arithmetic progression. Our algorithm can implement $N \times N$ discrete Laplace transform in gate complexity that grows as $O((log\,N)^3)$, ignoring the state preparation cost, where $N=2^n$ and $n$ is the number of qubits, which is a superpolynomial speedup in number of gates over the best classical counterpart that has complexity $O(N\cdot log\,N)$ for the same cases. Also, the circuit width grows as $O(log\,N)$. Quantum Laplace Transform (QLT) may enable new Quantum algorithms for cases like solving differential equations in the Laplace domain, developing an inverse Laplace transform algorithm on quantum computers, imaginary time evolution in the resolvent domain for calculating ground state energy, and spectral estimation of non-Hermitian matrices.
We introduce a quantum algorithm to perform the Laplace transform on quantum computers. Already, the quantum Fourier transform (QFT) is the cornerstone of many quantum algorithms, but the Laplace transform or its discrete version has not seen any efficient implementation on quantum computers due to its dissipative nature and hence non-unitary dynamics. However, a recent work has shown an efficient implementation for certain cases on quantum computers using the Taylor series. Unlike previous work, our work provides a completely different algorithm for doing Laplace Transform using Quantum Eigenvalue Transformation and Lap-LCHS, very efficiently at points which form an arithmetic progression. Our algorithm can implement N×N discrete Laplace transform in gate complexity that grows as O((logN)3), ignoring the state preparation cost, where N=2n and n is the number of qubits, which is a superpolynomial speedup in number of gates over the best classical counterpart that has complexity O(N⋅logN) for the same cases. Also, the circuit width grows as O(logN). Quantum Laplace Transform (QLT) may enable new Quantum algorithms for cases like solving differential equations in the Laplace domain, developing an inverse Laplace transform algorithm on quantum computers, imaginary time evolution in the resolvent domain for calculating ground state energy, and spectral estimation of non-Hermitian matrices.
While many classical algorithms rely on Laplace transforms, it has remained an open question whether these operations could be implemented efficiently on quantum computers. In this work, we introduce the Quantum Laplace Transform (QLT), which enables the implementation of N×N discrete Laplace transforms on quantum states encoded in ⌈log2(N)⌉-qubits. In many cases, the associated quantum circuits have a depth that scales with N as O(log(log(N))) and a size that scales as O(log(N)), requiring exponentially fewer operations and double-exponentially less computational time than their classical counterparts. These efficient scalings open the possibility of developing a new class of quantum algorithms based on Laplace transforms, with potential applications in physics, engineering, chemistry, machine learning, and finance.
Quantum-inspired algorithms can deliver substantial speedups over classical state-of-the-art methods by executing quantum algorithms with tensor networks on conventional hardware. Unlike circuit models restricted to unitary gates, tensor networks naturally accommodate non-unitary maps. This flexibility lets us design quantum-inspired methods that start from a quantum algorithmic structure, yet go beyond unitarity to achieve speedups. Here we introduce a tensor-network approach to compute the discrete Laplace transform, a non-unitary, aperiodic transform (in contrast to the Fourier transform). We encode a length-N signal on two paired n-qubit registers and decompose the overall map into a non-unitary exponential Damping Transform followed by a Quantum Fourier Transform, both compressed in a single matrix-product operator. This decomposition admits strong MPO compression to low bond dimension resulting in significant acceleration. We demonstrate simulations up to N=230 input data points, with up to 260 output data points, and quantify how bond dimension controls runtime and accuracy, including precise and efficient pole identification.
Eigenvalue transformations, which include solving time-dependent differential equations as a special case, have a wide range of applications in scientific and engineering computation. While quantum algorithms for singular value transformations are well studied, eigenvalue transformations are distinct, especially for non-normal matrices. We propose an efficient quantum algorithm for performing a class of eigenvalue transformations that can be expressed as a certain type of matrix Laplace transformation. This allows us to significantly extend the recently developed linear combination of Hamiltonian simulation (LCHS) method [An, Liu, Lin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 150603, 2023; An, Childs, Lin, arXiv:2312.03916] to represent a wider class of eigenvalue transformations, such as powers of the matrix inverse, A−k, and the exponential of the matrix inverse, e−A−1. The latter can be interpreted as the solution of a mass-matrix differential equation of the form Au′(t)=−u(t). We demonstrate that our eigenvalue transformation approach can solve this problem without explicitly inverting A, reducing the computational complexity.
Abstract. Eigenvalue transformations, which include solving time-dependent differential equations as a special case, have a wide range of applications in scientific and engineering computation. While quantum algorithms for singular value transformations are well studied, eigenvalue transformations are distinct, especially for nonnormal matrices. We propose an efficient quantum algorithm for performing a class of eigenvalue transformations that can be expressed as a certain type of matrix Laplace transformation. This allows us to significantly extend the recently developed linear combination of Hamiltonian simulation method [D. An, J.-P. Liu, and L. Lin, Phys. Rev. Lett., 131 (2023), 150603; D. An, A. M. Childs, and L. Lin, Commun. Math. Phys. 407, 19 (2026)] to represent a wider class of eigenvalue transformations, such as powers of the matrix inverse, [Formula: see text], and the exponential of the matrix inverse, [Formula: see text]. The latter can be interpreted as the solution of a mass-matrix differential equation of the form [Formula: see text]. We demonstrate that our eigenvalue transformation approach can solve this problem without explicitly inverting [Formula: see text], thereby reducing the computational complexity.
The Quantum Fourier Transform (QFT)andQuantumPhaseEstimation (QPE)are twofundamental algorithmic frameworks in quantum computation, and they provide the mathematical basis of many exponential-speedup quan tum algorithms, such as Shor’s factoring algorithm and quantum simulation techniques. In this work we present a detailed theoretical and computational study of the Quantum Fourier Transform and its integration in the Quan tum Phase Estimation. The discussion begins with the linear algebraic structure of the Hilbert spaces, the unitary transformations, and the complex vector representations that enable quantum interference and superposition. The QFT is studied as the unitary transform of computational basis states in the amplitudes in the frequency domain by phase rotations and tensor-product decompositions. The efficient circuit implementation in terms of Hadamard and controlled phase gates of this transform is discussed. The advantage of the transform in terms of polynomial time complexity over the classical discrete Fourier transform in some quantum scenarios is discussed.The QFT is implemented and the Quantum Phase Estimation algorithm is proposed to obtain the eigenphase information of the unitary operators. In the report the mathematical representation of QPE is derived by using the controlled unitary evolution, the inverse Fourier transforms and the measurement theory in finite dimensional Hilbert spaces. We discuss the probabilistic interpretation of phase extraction in detail and the convergence properties of the bi nary phase approximation. We also discuss the relation of QPE to eigenvalue problems in quantum mechanics and its applications to Hamiltonian simulation, quantum chemistry, cryptography, and hidden subgroup prob lems.Implementation aspects of these algorithms are studied using quantum circuit representations and oracle based computation models. We also discuss error sensitivity, qubit precision requirements, decoherence limita tions and practical constraints of Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) hardware. The work synthesizes the mathematical foundations, computational complexity analysis and physical realizations of the QFT and the QPE, demonstrating how the Fourier-based quantum transformations provide the essential mechanism underlying modern quantum algorithmic speedups and scalable quantum information processing.
The manuscript "A Comparison of Quantum and Traditional Fourier Transform Computations" discusses a very important and often overlooked aspect of quantum computing, namely a fair and detailed comparison of a quantum algorithm, its classical simulation, and its classical counterpart taking into account the complexity of I/O. Such an article is valuable and worth publishing. The current manuscript, however, still contains some inaccuracies that should be fixed and I will make suggestion on how the presentation can be improved.Let me first summarize the main result in my own words: a quantum Fourier transform (QFT) can calculate the Fourier transform of a vector with time complexity O(log2N), compared to the complexity O(NlogN) of a classical FFT. However, if one needs to read out the full vector instead, the complexity becomes O(N polylog(N)) again, without an advantage over the classical algorithm. It is actually worse than the author discusses, if one also takes into account the complexity of loading the initial state. Loading an initial classical data vector has complexity O(N), and this has to be repeated at every repetition, giving a complexity of O(N2polylogN), worse than classical. As the author correctly mentions, the QFT is thus a useful algorithm if the input data is prepared algorithmically, and limited sampling of the result vector is sufficient, as is the case for Shor's algorithm.This is a valuable observation that deserves a paper in CiSE, since these important considerations are not all known to people outside the quantum computing community, and are sometimes ignored even by quantum computing specialists. I thus want to encourage the author to improve the presentation to make it more accessible to a broader audience and fix a couple of technical flaws.Before discussing presentation issues, I want to address one technical flaw and a few points where more clarity is needed: This statement towards the end is too simplistic and needs to be clarified: "... if we want to measure each coefficient, we must redo our operations for each coefficient (since our wave function will collapse for every measurement)." The manuscript does not explain how to read out a specific coefficient. If one samples the wave function, one measures the result and gets a certain value (s1,⋯,sN) with a probability depending on the wave function. More complex amplitude-estimation algorithms are needed to read out specific coefficients, which then takes time O(N/ϵ). This needs to be better explained. This also raises another issue of normalization and precision. The quantum wave function has to be normalized to have an L2 norm of 1. We thus need to measure to a precision of epsilon divided by the L2 norm of the classical data, and if that increases with N the scaling is even worse. For example, if all entries are of order unity, the L2 norm is N. The one technical flaw in the paper is in preparing the input state to the QFT, and the complexity of the classical simulation of the quantum algorithm. There, the numbers are wrong. The classical complexity can easily be estimated by realizing that any sparse quantum gate (such as a 1-qubit or 1-qubit gate) can be simulated in time O(N)=O(2n), where N=2n. Thus, the overhead is just O(N), not O(N2), and the simulation complexity is just O(N) times the complexity of the quantum algorithm. This will be more apparent if, as I propose below, the author shows the quantum algorithm also through a sequence of quantum gates. However, note that in the simulation we then have the full vector, and thus do not incur the overhead of quantum state tomography. We need to simulate the algorithm only once and not O(N/ϵ) times. This means the simulation remains at O(Nlog2N) even if we read out all entries, which is not bad compared to the classical O(NlogN) of the FFT. The reason why the author seems to end with a different complexity is that his Matlab simulation does not simulate the quantum algorithm but the computation of the effect of the QFT applied to just one basis state. That is a suboptimal implementation. I thus propose to replace the Matlab code by a discussion of how a quantum gate (Hadamard or controlled phase rotation) can be implemented, and that will then nicely give the scaling discussed above.As mentioned in my summary at the beginning, the value of the paper can be increased if the author could also discuss the complexity of quantum state preparation from classical input data, e.g., following Shende-Bullock-Markov \citep{markov2006}, which has a complexity of O(Nlogϵ1). That means, that if the data is read from a classical vector (and not computed as, e.g., in Shor's algorithm), then the complexity of state preparation of O(Nlogϵ1) completely dominates the QFT itself, and if one furthermore wants to read out the full vector instead of sampling it, the complexity becomes O(N2log2(ϵ1)).In the conclusion the author writes that "QEC research is still in very early development and it is currently difficult to determine how the required resources for these corrections could scale with qubit usage." That is incorrect, as the overhead is pretty well known by now for certain QEC codes, such as the surface code. The asymptotic scaling of the overhead has long been known, and also detailed resource costs have been worked out for various algorithms. I suggest to focus the QEC section on the need for fault tolerance, and the large overhead associated with it. This is definitely not something that can be done on NISQ devices at an interesting scale. I would also use another reference for QEC than the Gil Kalai paper.Now, to suggestions for improved presentation:In the abstract, I suggest to present fewer technical details. "radix-2 DIT case of the Cooley-Tukey Algorithm" can just be called Fast Fourier transform, the QUBIT4MATLAB package does not need to be mentioned in the abstract, and neither does the "Master Theorem" have to be mentioned.In the abstract and in the rest of the paper, it is also better to talk about quantum speedup and not quantum supremacy. The paper is about asymptotic scaling (the author uses the big-O notation throughout), and not about supremacy, which is a specific size problem that is solved better on quantum hardware rather than classical hardware. A supremacy claim needs all constants to be worked out, and assumptions for the specific classical and quantum hardware. Replacing quantum supremacy by quantum speedup can fix this. The observations are still valuable and correct.The first section is called "The shortcomings of classical computing and the early developments of quantum computing". That title sounds strange to me. What are the shortcomings? The author may rather want to stress the additional capabilities of quantum computers. Given that most readers will not be physicists and have no experience with quantum mechanics, it would be valuable to expand this first section. Discuss equation (3) before equation (1), and then introduce equation (1), to show that this means that the state of a qubit is actually a two-dimensional complex vector, After that only go to the many-quit state. After equation 4 it may be good to talk about amplitudes first, and then probabilities. Saying that the state is determined by "the qubit simply has a probability...", ignores the all important phases that are the crucial difference between quantum computing and probabilistic classical computing. "Quantum gates, unlike classical gates, do not delete information and are fully reversible." Needs further explanation. This comes from the reversibility of the microscopic laws of physics. Here it may be worthwhile to mention that, as quantum gates are time evolution of a quantum system, they are unitary operators on the Hilbert space that was introduced above. The discussion in the next sentence about them not using energy is misleading as well. In fact, the control and operation of the quantum gate always needs energy. It is only the free evolution of a quantum system that conserves energy. The part on " subatomic systems such as a superposition of quantum states. " would also need more explanation. Does the author here want to describe specific implementations of qubits? If so, more detail is needed. If not, I propose to drop this part."The definition and use of the classical discrete Fourier transform": here is an abrupt jump from Shor's algorithm to the DFT. Since Shor's algorithm again gets mentioned later on as a case where the QFT is better than a classical DFT, it make sense to discuss more details of Shor's algorithm, and that in essence it solvers the factor problem by using a QFT to find the period of a function. In light of the above complexity discussion this is important: we don't deal with classical data that one has to load but with a state that is computed (the function f(x) = a^x mod N ), and one is not interested in the full vector but just in finding the period. This can be done just by measuring the result of the QFT, which in this particular case will return a random multiple of the base frequency, and with a few repeated measurements one can then extract the period).The Fourier transform should be well known to the reader, and it is thus not obvious to me that equation 6 is needed. I would instead introduce \omega in equation 5. For the discussion of the implementation I suggest to mention that the rest of the paper limits itself to the case of powers of 2, i.e. N=2^n, for which the radix-2 version applies. Since the implementation is well known for most computational scientists, it could be moved from to supplementary material, as can be the derivation of the O(N log N) complexity, which is also well known.In the discussion of the QFT, unfortunately the quantum algorithm is not presented. What is presented is the mathematical unitary operation. It would be very valuable for the reader to see an actual implementation of the quantum algorithm, i.e. the sequence of O(n^2) Hadamard gates and controlled rotations – either as a circuit drawing, or more useful as quantum code, either using a quantum programming language that allows loops (such as Q#), or as some quantum pseudo code with loops. Then the reader will see the sequence of O(n^2) operations and how it creates the unitary operation of the QFT."The implementation of the QFT in MATLAB...". This section can be improved as well., As discussed above, the Matlab code does not implement the quantum algorithm but rather implements the application of the unitary operation to one of the basis states. It would be more useful for the reader to instead get implementations of the Hadamard and controlled phase gates, which could then be combined with the above quantum algorithm (maybe all in Matlab even?) for a full simulation of the algorithm – and in time O(N n^2), not O(N^2 n^2)."Evaluating the complexity of the QFT Implementation" – I discussed the issues with the complexity estimates already above. If one replaces it by an estimate of the complexity of simulating the H and controlled phase gate each in O(N) operations then it both becomes simpler and the complexity becomes just O(N) times that of the quantum version"Evaluating the complexity of the theoretical form of the QFT Implementation”. I assume that by "theoretical" the author means the actual quantum operation? The comparison section needs to be fixed, since that's where there is the mentioned flaw based on the suboptimal Matlab code, and that will also change table 1. I suggest that table 1 could have three cases: A) ignoring state preparation and one only wants to sample the output a constant number of times; B) ignoring state preparation but one wants to read the full vector; C) including state preparation from classical data and one only wants to sample the output a constant number of times; D) including state preparation from classical data and one wants to read the full vectorThe reader will then see that only case A has a speedup, and that in the other cases even the simulation of the quantum algorithm is faster than the quantum algorithm on a quantum computer.The conclusions should then be updated, taking these slightly modified comparisons into account. The case of Shor's algorithm, which falls into category A) above, is indeed interesting but deserves a deeper explanation so that the reader understands that Shor's algorithm can compute the input with complexity O(N3) (up to log factors), and why only a few samples of the output are needed. That way, the exponential speedup over the FFT remains, and the super polynomial speedup over the name sieve. However, if classical data has to be loaded or should be returned then there is no speedup. I call this the I/O problem of quantum algorithms, which indeed—as the author writes—means that in these cases quantum computing is no better than classical computing.This is an important observation that the paper beautifully works out. Fixing the flaw in the simulation section and improving the presentation will make this a very nice paper.