< BACK_TO_RESEARCH
B-12 // RESEARCH_ARCHIVE :: QUANTUM_COMPUTING

QUANTUM_COMPUTING

> Co-authored resource-cost study of Shor's algorithm · logical gate scalings (group) · physical-qubit overhead (my derivation)

COMPLETE > ARCHIVE_002 VIEW_PAPER VIEW_POSTER
// SECTION_01 :: OVERVIEW

A four-author study, co-authored with Guangqi Gao, Jerry Xia, and Yiqun Zhao, quantifying the true resource cost of Shor’s factoring algorithm. Shor’s celebrated exponential speedup is usually stated in an idealized gate model that hides the real cost of its “oracle,” modular exponentiation; the study makes that cost explicit under a realistic hardware-native gate set {RZ, SX, X, CX} (RZ rotations applied virtually, at zero gate time) with an approximate QFT. The group established the logical-circuit resource scalings; my own contribution was the fault-tolerant layer, deriving the physical-qubit overhead of that circuit under a surface-code model.

// SECTION_02 :: GROUP_ANALYSIS

Working as a group, we decomposed the dominant subroutine, modular exponentiation, bottom-up: a Fourier adder (O(n) gates), a modular adder (n+4 qubits), and a controlled modular multiplier (2n+O(1) qubits), assembled into the controlled modular exponential that drives the algorithm’s cost.

Modular exponentiation build roadmap
Figure 1: Bottom-up roadmap for the modular-exponentiation oracle, Fourier adder to modular adder to controlled modular multiplier to controlled modular exponential, each layer built from the one below.

Compiling each block to the hardware-native set and swapping the exact QFT for the approximate QFT, keeping only rotations with k ≤ kmax = Θ(log(n/ε)), cuts each qubit to O(log n) phase gates at Coppersmith error O(ε).

Two-qubit QFT decomposed into native gates
Figure 2: Two-qubit QFT decomposed into hardware-native gates by the Qiskit transpiler, making the controlled-phase rotations explicit as elementary operations.

The co-authors’ logical-level result: with kmax = O(log n), the full algorithm needs only O(n) logical qubits, with O(n log n) gates for the QFT, O(n² log n) gates for modular multiplication, and O(n³ log n) gates at O(n³) circuit depth for the dominant modular-exponentiation step. Qiskit transpilation confirmed the CNOT and RZ counts grow quadratically with qubit count, matching the QFT’s O(n²) scaling. The study also applies oblivious runway adders to parallelize the arithmetic, trading space for a factor-NL reduction in circuit depth.

QFT gate count versus qubit number
Figure 3: Post-transpilation gate counts vs. qubit number for the QFT compiled to {RZ, SX, X, CX}; both CNOT and RZ counts grow quadratically, matching the O(n²) scaling.
// SECTION_03 :: MY_CONTRIBUTION

My personal contribution was translating that logical circuit into a physical-qubit budget under a coarse surface-code fault-tolerant model with magic-state distillation. Mapping the circuit onto a surface code with lattice surgery for the CX gate gives data qubits Qd = NL(2d+1)² and total physical qubits Qt = 2NL(2d²+2d+1).

Setting the code distance to suppress logical error across the full run, and realizing the non-Clifford RZ rotations through magic-state distillation (T-factories at ~50% of chip area, T-count per rotation ≈ log₂(1/ε)), I found the physical-qubit overhead scales as O(NL · log(NL)²) in the logical-qubit count NL.

Surface Code QEC Magic-State Distillation Universal Gate Sets Qiskit Paper and Poster