Quantum Information & Computation
Volume 26
RESEARCH ARTICLE Open access

Arbitrary State Creation via Controlled Measurement

Alexander I. Zenchuk, Wentao Qi, Junde Wu

Author affiliations
  • Alexander I. Zenchuk1
  • Wentao Qi2
  • Junde Wu3
  1. Federal Research Center of Problems of Chemical Physics and Medicinal Chemistry RAS, Chernogolovka, Moscow, Russia
  2. Institute of Quantum Computing and Computer Theory, School of Computer Science and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
  3. School of Mathematical Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

pp. 114-128 · 10.2478/qic-2026-0006

Read PDF View on Reference Global
On this page

Abstract

We propose an algorithm to create an arbitrary n -qubit pure quantum superposition state with precision of m -decimals (binary representation) for each probability amplitude. The algorithm uses one-qubit rotations, Hadamard transformations and, C-NOT operations with multi-qubit controls. The depth of the circuit is O(2n n), its space is O(n). We emphasize that the parameters of the utilized unitary transformations are predicted in advance by the required precision and therefore there is no classical calculation supplementing this quantum algorithm. Finalizing the state-creation we perform the measurement of the ancilla state with a certain desired output with the purpose of removing all the garbage from the created superposition state. If n and m are independent and n ≫ m, the probability of access to the desired ancilla-state (success probability) is 2−n, which requires O(2n) runs of the algorithm and leads to the overall depth O(4n n). However, the situation can be significantly improved by replacing the usual measurement with the controlled measurement of the ancilla state that, first of all, removes the garbage part of the superposition state and, second (and most important), allows to avoid both the problem of small success probability to the desired ancilla state and multiple runs of the algorithm. As a consequence, the depth of the algorithm is O(2n n) in this case. If m serves to provide the required fidelity of state approximation, then the above parameters increase. This algorithm can be a subroutine generating the required input state in various algorithms, in particular, in matrix-manipulation algorithms developed earlier.
Open accessCC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Keywords

  • Arbitrary state creation
  • amplitude encoding
  • phase encoding
  • controlled measurement
  • measurementbased algorithm

Suggested citation

Alexander I. Zenchuk, Wentao Qi, Junde Wu (2026). Arbitrary State Creation via Controlled Measurement. Quantum Information & Computation, 26(1), 114-128. https://doi.org/10.2478/qic-2026-0006

Download BibTeX

References (51)

  1. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang (2000). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Zh.-Yu. Wei, D. Malz and J. I. Cirac (2023). “Efficient adiabatic preparation of tensor network states”. Physical Review Research, 5, L022037.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.L022037Google Scholar
  3. A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim and S. Lloyd (2009). “Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations”. Physical Review Letters, 103, 150502.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.150502Google Scholar
  4. L. Zhao, Z. Zhao, P. Rebentrost and J. Fitzsimons (2021). “Compiling basic linear algebra subroutines for quantum computers”. Quantum Machine Intelligence, 3, 21.DOI: 10.1007/s42484-021-00048-8Google Scholar
  5. A. I. Zenchuk, W. Qi, A. Kumar and J. Wu (2024). “Matrix manipulations via unitary transformations and ancilla-state measurements”. Quantum Information and Computation, 24: 13–14, 1099.DOI: 10.26421/QIC24.13-14-2Google Scholar
  6. J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe and S. Lloyd (2017). “Quantum machine learning”. Nature, 549, 195.DOI: 10.1038/nature23474Google Scholar
  7. S. Aaronson (2015). “Read the fine print”. Nature Physics, 11, 291–293.DOI: 10.1038/nphys3272Google Scholar
  8. P. Rebentrost, M. Mohseni and S. Lloyd (2014). “Quantum support vector machine for big data classification”. Physics Review Letters, 113, 130503.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.130503Google Scholar
  9. N. Wiebe, D. Braun and S. Lloyd (2012). “Quantum algorithm for data fitting”. Physical Review Letters, 109, 050505.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.050505Google Scholar
  10. M. Schuld, I. Sinayskiy and F. Petruccione (2016). “Prediction by linear regression on a quantum computer”. Physical Review A, 94, 022342.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.94.022342Google Scholar
  11. G. Wang (2017). “Quantum algorithm for linear regression”. Physical Review A, 96, 012335.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.96.012335Google Scholar
  12. A. Barenco, Ch. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin and H. Weinfurter (1995). “Elementary gates for quantum computation”. Physics Review A, 52, 3457.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.52.3457Google Scholar
  13. J. J. Vartiainen, M. Möttönen and M. M. Salomaa (2004). “Efficient decomposition of quantum gates”. Physical Review Letters, 92, 177902.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.177902Google Scholar
  14. W. H. Press, B. P. Flannery, S. A. Teukolsky and W. T. Vetterling (1992). “Gray codes”, in Numerical Recipes in FORTRAN: The Art of Scientific Computing, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, pp. 886–888.Google Scholar
  15. X. Sun, G. Tian, S. Yang, P. Yuan and S. Zhang (2023). “Asymptotically optimal circuit depth for quantum state preparation and general unitary synthesis”. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 42: 10, 3301.DOI: 10.1109/TCAD.2023.3244885Google Scholar
  16. G. Rosenthal (2021). “Query and depth upper bounds for quantum unitaries via Grover search”, arXiv:2111.07992 [quant-ph].Google Scholar
  17. P. Yuan and S. Zhang (2023). “Optimal qram and improved unitary synthesis by quantum circuits with any number of ancillary qubits”. Quantum, 7, 956.DOI: 10.22331/q-2023-03-20-956Google Scholar
  18. X.-M. Zhang, T. Li and X. Yuan (2022). “Quantum state preparation with optimal circuit depth: Implementations and applications”. Physical Review Letters, 129: 23, 230504.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.230504Google Scholar
  19. X.-M. Zhang, M.-H. Yung and X. Yuan (2021). “Low-depth quantum state preparation”. Physical Review Research, 3, 043200.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.043200Google Scholar
  20. P. Niemann, R. Datta and R. Wille (2016). “Logic synthesis for quantum state generation”, in 2016 IEEE 46th International Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logic (ISMVL). IEEE, p. 247.DOI: 10.1109/ISMVL.2016.30Google Scholar
  21. M.-X. Luo, S.-Y. Ma, Y. Deng and X. Wang (2015). “Deterministic generations of quantum state with no more than six qubits”. Quantum Information Processing, 14: 3, 901.DOI: 10.1007/s11128-014-0905-9Google Scholar
  22. S. I. Doronin, E. B. Fel’dman and A. I. Zenchuk (2020). “Solving systems of linear algebraic equations via unitary transformations on quantum processor of IBM quantum experience”. Quantum Information Processing, 19, 68.DOI: 10.1007/s11128-019-2570-5Google Scholar
  23. V. Bergholm, J. J. Vartiainen, M. Möttönen and M. M. Salomaa (2005). “Quantum circuits with uniformly controlled one-qubit gates”. Physical Review A, 71, 052330.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.052330Google Scholar
  24. I. F. Araujo, D. K. Park, F. Petruccione and A. J. da Silva1 (2021). “A divide-and-conquer algorithm for quantum state preparation”. Scientific Reports, 11: 1, 6329.DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-85474-1Google Scholar
  25. T. H. Cormen, Ch. E. Leiserson, R. L. Rivest and C. Stein (2009). Introduction to Algorithms. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. M. Plesch and C. Brukner (2011). “Quantum state preparation with universal gate decompositions”. Physical Review A, 83, 032302.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.83.032302Google Scholar
  27. F. Mozafari, M. Soeken, H. Riener and G. De Micheli (2020). “Automatic uniform quantum state preparation using decision diagrams”, in 2020 IEEE 50th International Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logic (ISMVL), Miyazaki, Japan, pp. 170–175.DOI: 10.1109/ISMVL49045.2020.00-10Google Scholar
  28. A. Shukla and P. Vedula (2024). “An efficient quantum algorithm for preparation of uniform quantum superposition states”. Quantum Information Processing, 23, 38.DOI: 10.1007/s11128-024-04258-4Google Scholar
  29. R. I. Nepomechie and D. Raveh (2024). “Qudit Dicke state preparation”. Quantum Information & Computation, 24: 1–2, 0037.DOI: 10.26421/QIC24.1-2-2Google Scholar
  30. P. Kaye and M. Mosca (2001). “Quantum networks for generating arbitrary quantum states”, in Proceedings, International Conference on Quantum Information (ICQI). Rochester, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  31. Ar. A. Melnikov, A. A. Termanova, S. V. Dolgov, F. Neukart and M. R. Perelshtein (2023). “Quantum state preparation using tensor networks”. Quantum Science and Technology, 8, 035027.DOI: 10.1088/2058-9565/acd9e7Google Scholar
  32. D. A. Puente, F. Motzoi, T. Calarco, G. Morigi and M. Rizzi (2024). “Quantum state preparation via engineered ancilla resetting”. Quantum, 8, 1299.DOI: 10.22331/q-2024-03-27-1299Google Scholar
  33. K. C. Smith, E. Crane, N. Wiebe and S. M. Girvin (2023). “Deterministic constant-depth preparation of the aklt state on a quantum processor using fusion measurements”. PRX Quantum, 4, 020315.DOI: 10.1103/PRXQuantum.4.020315Google Scholar
  34. B. D. Clader, A. M. Dalzell, N. Stamatopoulos, G. Salton, M. Berta and W. J. Zeng (2022). “Quantum resources required to blockencode a matrix of classical data”. IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, 3, 3103323.DOI: 10.1109/TQE.2022.3231194Google Scholar
  35. T. Albash and D. A. Lidar (2018). “Adiabatic quantum computation”. Reviews of Modern Physics, 90, 015002.DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.90.015002Google Scholar
  36. V. Uotila, l. Salmenperä, L. Becker, A. M.-van de Griend, A. R. Shinde and J. K. Nurminen (2025). “Perspectives on utilization of measurements in quantum algorithms”. arXiv:2507.04325v1 [quant-ph].DOI: 10.1109/QSW67625.2025.00016Google Scholar
  37. P. W. Shor (1994). “Algorithms for quantum computation: Discrete logarithms and factoring”, in Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Santa Fe, NM, pp. 124–134.DOI: 10.1109/SFCS.1994.365700Google Scholar
  38. L. Grover (1996). “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search, STOC”, in 96: Proceedings 28th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computation. New York: ACM Press.DOI: 10.1145/237814.237866Google Scholar
  39. M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio and P. J. Coles (2021). “Variational quantum algorithms”, Nature Reviews Physics, 3: 9, 625.DOI: 10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9Google Scholar
  40. S. Popescu (1994). “Bell’s inequalities versus teleportation: What is nonlocality?” Physical Review Letters, 72, 797.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.797Google Scholar
  41. M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki and R. Horodecki (1999). “General teleportation channel, singlet fraction and quasidistillation”. Physical Review A, 60, 1888.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.60.1888Google Scholar
  42. L. Botelho, A. Glos, A. Kundu, J. A. Miszczak, Ö. Salehi and Z. Zimborás (2022). “Error mitigation for variational quantum algorithms through midcircuit measurements”. Physical Review A, 105: 2, 022441.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.105.022441Google Scholar
  43. H. Wang, L.-A. Wu, Yu. Liu and F. Nori (2010). “Measurement-based quantum phase estimation algorithm for finding eigenvalues of non-unitary matrices”. Physical Review A, 82, 062303.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.82.062303Google Scholar
  44. E. B. Fel’dman, J. Wu and A. I. Zenchuk (2025). “Perfect pure quantum state transfer via state restoring and ancilla measurement.” arXiv:2509.10100v2.Google Scholar
  45. T. C. Wei (2018). “Quantum spin models for measurement-based quantum computation”. Advance in Physics X, 3, 1.DOI: 10.1080/23746149.2018.1461026Google Scholar
  46. M. Zwerger, H. J. Briegel and W. Dür (2016). “Measurement-based quantum communication”. Applied Physics B, 122, 50.DOI: 10.1007/s00340-015-6285-8Google Scholar
  47. M. Zwerger, W. Dür and H. J. Briegel (2012). “Measurement-based quantum repeaters”. Physical Review A, 85, 062326.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.85.062326Google Scholar
  48. E. B. Fel’dman, A. I. Zenchuk, W. Qi and J. Wu (2025). “Controlled measurement, Hermitian conjugation and normalization in matrix-manipulation algorithms”. arXiv.2504.00015.Google Scholar
  49. A. Y. Kitaev, A. H. Shen and M. N. Vyalyi (2002). Classical and Quantum Computation, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, V.47, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island.DOI: 10.1090/gsm/047Google Scholar
  50. G. Brassard, P. Hoyer, M. Mosca and A. Tapp (2002). “Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation.” AMS Contemporary Mathematics, 305, 53.DOI: 10.1090/conm/305/05215Google Scholar
  51. Ch. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres and W. K. Wootters (1993). “Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels”. Physical Review Letters, 70, 1895.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.1895Google Scholar