Current limits on Grover search space
$begingroup$
I was wondering why till date Grover search has been implemented only till 3 qubits (corresponding to size of database = 8). Refer this paper
The reason why I ask is that we have much larger sized quantum computers today. For eg IBM has 50 qubits, Google has announced 72. Why can't we run a larger sized Grover algorithm on these computers ? Some of my guesses (based on theoretical issues) are as follows :
Circuit architecture restrictions : Perhaps the gate set and the underlying architecture of the circuits provided by these computers puts a restriction.
Error corrections : Additional qubits are required for correcting errors.
I would like to know if there are any additional practical/physics issues that is limiting the use of Grover search currently.
architecture physical-realization grovers-algorithm ibmq
asked 18 hours ago
Maharshi RayMaharshi Ray
311
New contributor
Maharshi Ray is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I was wondering why till date Grover search has been implemented only till 3 qubits (corresponding to size of database = 8). Refer this paper
The reason why I ask is that we have much larger sized quantum computers today. For eg IBM has 50 qubits, Google has announced 72. Why can't we run a larger sized Grover algorithm on these computers ? Some of my guesses (based on theoretical issues) are as follows :
Circuit architecture restrictions : Perhaps the gate set and the underlying architecture of the circuits provided by these computers puts a restriction.
Error corrections : Additional qubits are required for correcting errors.
I would like to know if there are any additional practical/physics issues that is limiting the use of Grover search currently.
architecture physical-realization grovers-algorithm ibmq
asked 18 hours ago
Maharshi RayMaharshi Ray
311
New contributor
Maharshi Ray is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I was wondering why till date Grover search has been implemented only till 3 qubits (corresponding to size of database = 8). Refer this paper
The reason why I ask is that we have much larger sized quantum computers today. For eg IBM has 50 qubits, Google has announced 72. Why can't we run a larger sized Grover algorithm on these computers ? Some of my guesses (based on theoretical issues) are as follows :
Circuit architecture restrictions : Perhaps the gate set and the underlying architecture of the circuits provided by these computers puts a restriction.
Error corrections : Additional qubits are required for correcting errors.
I would like to know if there are any additional practical/physics issues that is limiting the use of Grover search currently.
architecture physical-realization grovers-algorithm ibmq
asked 18 hours ago
Maharshi RayMaharshi Ray
311
New contributor
Maharshi Ray is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
I was wondering why till date Grover search has been implemented only till 3 qubits (corresponding to size of database = 8). Refer this paper
The reason why I ask is that we have much larger sized quantum computers today. For eg IBM has 50 qubits, Google has announced 72. Why can't we run a larger sized Grover algorithm on these computers ? Some of my guesses (based on theoretical issues) are as follows :
Circuit architecture restrictions : Perhaps the gate set and the underlying architecture of the circuits provided by these computers puts a restriction.
Error corrections : Additional qubits are required for correcting errors.
I would like to know if there are any additional practical/physics issues that is limiting the use of Grover search currently.
architecture physical-realization grovers-algorithm ibmq
architecture physical-realization grovers-algorithm ibmq
asked 18 hours ago
Maharshi RayMaharshi Ray
311
New contributor
Maharshi Ray is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 18 hours ago
Maharshi RayMaharshi Ray
311
New contributor
Maharshi Ray is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 18 hours ago
Maharshi RayMaharshi Ray
311
New contributor
Maharshi Ray is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 18 hours ago
Maharshi RayMaharshi Ray
311
asked 18 hours ago
Maharshi RayMaharshi Ray
311
311
New contributor
Maharshi Ray is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Maharshi Ray is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Maharshi Ray is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I am going to try to give guesses that can make sense:
- More qubits does not mean better machines. They may be less noise-tolerant and with less connectivity between qubits. That is why, when you benchmark them (with or without error-correction), you look first at the simplest implementations of state of art algorithms. Plus, you may change some calibrations parameters of the machine based on these results.
- Implementing a multi-controlled NOT gate (for example as the oracle) can require a lot of quantum operations like Toffolis (which has a quite deep decomposation into 2-qubit and 1-qubit set of gates), meaning you have deeper circuits, which are more difficult to apply given the (depth) limit of these quantum computers.
The example circuit you refer to is a very toy example. So it is not very useful other than benchmarking so far.
Please, bear in mind these are guesses. There may be many things going on and this is a research playground with a few people involved in the field.
answered 15 hours ago
cnadacnada
2,365213
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "694"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Maharshi Ray is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fquantumcomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f5445%2fcurrent-limits-on-grover-search-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I am going to try to give guesses that can make sense:
- More qubits does not mean better machines. They may be less noise-tolerant and with less connectivity between qubits. That is why, when you benchmark them (with or without error-correction), you look first at the simplest implementations of state of art algorithms. Plus, you may change some calibrations parameters of the machine based on these results.
- Implementing a multi-controlled NOT gate (for example as the oracle) can require a lot of quantum operations like Toffolis (which has a quite deep decomposation into 2-qubit and 1-qubit set of gates), meaning you have deeper circuits, which are more difficult to apply given the (depth) limit of these quantum computers.
The example circuit you refer to is a very toy example. So it is not very useful other than benchmarking so far.
Please, bear in mind these are guesses. There may be many things going on and this is a research playground with a few people involved in the field.
answered 15 hours ago
cnadacnada
2,365213
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am going to try to give guesses that can make sense:
- More qubits does not mean better machines. They may be less noise-tolerant and with less connectivity between qubits. That is why, when you benchmark them (with or without error-correction), you look first at the simplest implementations of state of art algorithms. Plus, you may change some calibrations parameters of the machine based on these results.
- Implementing a multi-controlled NOT gate (for example as the oracle) can require a lot of quantum operations like Toffolis (which has a quite deep decomposation into 2-qubit and 1-qubit set of gates), meaning you have deeper circuits, which are more difficult to apply given the (depth) limit of these quantum computers.
The example circuit you refer to is a very toy example. So it is not very useful other than benchmarking so far.
Please, bear in mind these are guesses. There may be many things going on and this is a research playground with a few people involved in the field.
answered 15 hours ago
cnadacnada
2,365213
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am going to try to give guesses that can make sense:
- More qubits does not mean better machines. They may be less noise-tolerant and with less connectivity between qubits. That is why, when you benchmark them (with or without error-correction), you look first at the simplest implementations of state of art algorithms. Plus, you may change some calibrations parameters of the machine based on these results.
- Implementing a multi-controlled NOT gate (for example as the oracle) can require a lot of quantum operations like Toffolis (which has a quite deep decomposation into 2-qubit and 1-qubit set of gates), meaning you have deeper circuits, which are more difficult to apply given the (depth) limit of these quantum computers.
The example circuit you refer to is a very toy example. So it is not very useful other than benchmarking so far.
Please, bear in mind these are guesses. There may be many things going on and this is a research playground with a few people involved in the field.
answered 15 hours ago
cnadacnada
2,365213
$endgroup$
I am going to try to give guesses that can make sense:
- More qubits does not mean better machines. They may be less noise-tolerant and with less connectivity between qubits. That is why, when you benchmark them (with or without error-correction), you look first at the simplest implementations of state of art algorithms. Plus, you may change some calibrations parameters of the machine based on these results.
- Implementing a multi-controlled NOT gate (for example as the oracle) can require a lot of quantum operations like Toffolis (which has a quite deep decomposation into 2-qubit and 1-qubit set of gates), meaning you have deeper circuits, which are more difficult to apply given the (depth) limit of these quantum computers.
The example circuit you refer to is a very toy example. So it is not very useful other than benchmarking so far.
Please, bear in mind these are guesses. There may be many things going on and this is a research playground with a few people involved in the field.
answered 15 hours ago
cnadacnada
2,365213
answered 15 hours ago
cnadacnada
2,365213
answered 15 hours ago
cnadacnada
2,365213
answered 15 hours ago
cnadacnada
2,365213
2,365213
add a comment |
add a comment |
Maharshi Ray is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Maharshi Ray is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Maharshi Ray is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Maharshi Ray is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Quantum Computing Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fquantumcomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f5445%2fcurrent-limits-on-grover-search-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
