Quantum Information & Computation
Volume 25, Issue 6
RESEARCH ARTICLE Open access

Quantum Algorithms for Matrix Operations of Row Addition, Row Swapping, Trace Calculation and Transpose

Yu-Hang Liu, Yuan-Hong Tao, Jing-Run Lan, Shao-Ming Fei

Author affiliations
  • Yu-Hang Liu1
  • Yuan-Hong Tao1
  • Jing-Run Lan1
  • Shao-Ming Fei2
  1. School of Science, Zhejiang University of Science and Technology, Hangzhou, China
  2. School of Mathematical Sciences, Capital Normal University, Beijing, China

pp. 568-585 · 10.2478/qic-2025-0031

Read PDF View on Reference Global
On this page

Abstract

Quantum algorithms of matrix operations are of great significance in many fields in science and technology. In this paper, by leveraging multi-qubit Toffoli gates and basic single-qubit operations, the quantum algorithms of matrix operations of row addition, row swapping, trace calculation and transpose are obtained. In particular, the complexities of these quantum algorithms are presented, too.
Open accessCC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Keywords

  • quantum algorithm
  • quantum circuit
  • matrix operation
  • row addition
  • row swapping
  • quantum measurement

Suggested citation

Yu-Hang Liu, Yuan-Hong Tao, Jing-Run Lan, Shao-Ming Fei (2025). Quantum Algorithms for Matrix Operations of Row Addition, Row Swapping, Trace Calculation and Transpose. Quantum Information & Computation, 25(6), 568-585. https://doi.org/10.2478/qic-2025-0031

Download BibTeX

References (24)

  1. Benioff P (1980). The computer as a physical system: A microscopic quantum mechanical Hamiltonian model of computers as represented by Turing machines. J. Stat. Phys., 22(5): 563591.DOI: 10.1007/BF01011339Google Scholar
  2. Manin Y I (1980). Computable and noncomputable (in Russian). Sov. Radio, 13–15.Google Scholar
  3. Deutsch D (1985). Quantum theory, the Church -Turing principle and the universal quantum computer. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 400(1818): 97117.DOI: 10.1098/rspa.1985.0070Google Scholar
  4. Shor P W (1994). Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring. Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE: 124134.Google Scholar
  5. Shor P W (1999). Polynomial time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM Rev., 41(2): 303332.DOI: 10.1137/S0036144598347011Google Scholar
  6. Grover L K (1996). A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 212219.DOI: 10.1145/237814.237866Google Scholar
  7. Harrow A W, Hassidim A and Lloyd S (2009). Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations. Phys. Rev. Lett., 103(15): 150502.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.150502Google Scholar
  8. Clader B D, Jacobs B C and Sprouse C R (2013). Preconditioned quantum linear system algorithm. Phys. Rev. Lett., 110(25): 250504.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.250504Google Scholar
  9. Coppersmith D and Winograd S (1990). Matrix multiplication via arithmetic progressions. J. Symb. Comput., 9(3): 251–280.DOI: 10.1016/S0747-7171(08)80013-2Google Scholar
  10. Weinstein Y S, Pravia M A, Fortunato E M, et al. (2001). Implementation of the quantum Fourier transform. Phys. Rev. Lett., 86(9): 1889.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.1889Google Scholar
  11. Nielsen M A, Chuang I (2000). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Wang H, Wu L, Liu Y, et al. (2010). Measurement based quantum phase estimation algorithm for finding eigenvalues of nonunitary matrices. Phys. Rev. A, 82(6):062303.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.82.062303Google Scholar
  13. Motta M, Ye E, McClean J R, et al. (2021). Low rank representations for quantum simulation of electronic structure. Npj Quantum Inf., 7: 83.DOI: 10.1038/s41534-021-00416-zGoogle Scholar
  14. Kockum A F, Soro A and García-Álvarez L, et al. Lecture Notes on Quantum Computing. arXiv: 2311.08445 [quant-ph].Google Scholar
  15. Prakash A (2014). Quantum algorithms for linear algebra and machine learning. Ph.D. Thesis, UC Berkeley.Google Scholar
  16. Trotter H F (1959). On the product of semi-groups of operators. P. Am. Math. Soc., 10(4): 545-551.DOI: 10.1090/S0002-9939-1959-0108732-6Google Scholar
  17. Zhao Z, Fitzsimons J K and Fitzsimons J F (2019). Quantumassisted Gaussian process regression. Phys. Rev. A, 99(5): 052331.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.99.052331Google Scholar
  18. Stolze J, Zenchuk A I (2019). Computing scalar products via a twoterminal quantum transmission line. Phys. Lett. A, 383(34): 125978.DOI: 10.1016/j.physleta.2019.125978Google Scholar
  19. Wentao Q, Alexander I Z, Asutosh K and Junde W (2024). Quantum algorithms for matrix operations and linear systems of equations. Commun. Theor. Phys., 76: 035103.DOI: 10.1088/1572-9494/ad2366Google Scholar
  20. Alexander I Z, Wentao Q, Asutosh K and Junde W (2004). Matrix manipulations via unitary transformations and ancilla state measurements. Quantum Inf. Comput., 24(13): 1099-1109.DOI: 10.26421/QIC24.13-14-2Google Scholar
  21. Alexander I Z, Georgii A B, Wentao Q, Asutosh K and Junde W (2025). Quantum Algorithms for Calculating Determinant and Inverse of Matrix and Solving Linear Algebraic Systems. Quantum Inf. Comput., 25(2): 195-215.DOI: 10.2478/qic-2025-0010Google Scholar
  22. Alexander I Z, Wentao Q and Junde W (2025). Matrix encoding method in variational quantum singular value decomposition. Quantum Inf. Comput., 25(4): 356-368.DOI: 10.2478/qic-2025-0020Google Scholar
  23. Edward B F, Alexander I Z, Wentao Q and Junde W, Controlled measurement, Hermitian conjugation and normalization in matrix-manipulation algorithms. arXiv:2504.00015 [quant-ph].Google Scholar
  24. Kitaev A Y, Shen A H and Vyalyi M N (2002). Classical and Quantum Computation, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, V.47, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island.DOI: 10.1090/gsm/047Google Scholar