Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Quantum algorithm for solving nonlinear differential equations based on physics-informed effective Hamiltonians

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Differential equations can be solved by preparing the ground state of an effective Hamiltonian built in a Chebyshev basis.

desk verdict Genuinely useful non-variational construction for linear and PDE problems, but the nonlinear section rests on an unproven product-state assumption in a degenerate nullspace and the abstract oversells a speed-up. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13174 v1 pith:ZINY4DMS submitted 2025-04-17 quant-ph

Hsin-Yu Wu , Annie E. Paine , Evan Philip , Antonio A. Gentile , Oleksandr Kyriienko This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6865N35 PACS 03.67.Ac
keywords quantumdifferentialequationsolvereffectiveHamiltonianChebyshevfeaturemapgroundstatepreparationimaginarytimeevolutionsingularvaluetransformationphysics-informedmachinelearningnonlinearequations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes a quantum algorithm that solves linear and nonlinear differential equations without discretizing the domain and without variational training. The idea is to rewrite the differential equation, together with boundary and data constraints, as a real symmetric positive-semidefinite operator $H$ acting on the coefficients of a Chebyshev-polynomial expansion; the equation is solved when a ground state $|\psi_g\rangle$ of $H$ is found with minimum eigenvalue $\lambda_{\min}\approx 0$. The solution function is then read out as a rescaled overlap $f_Q(x)=\sqrt{\eta}\,\langle\tau(x)|\psi_g\rangle$, which can be evaluated at any point $x$, not just on a grid. Nonlinearities are handled by doubling the Hilbert space and encoding quadratic terms as entangling operators $G_n^T\otimes G_n^T$ inside the same ground-state framework. If the construction works as claimed, it supplies a variational-free, physics-informed route to quantum scientific computing in the early fault-tolerant era, combining the compact basis of quantum machine learning approaches with the state-preparation guarantees of quantum linear algebra methods.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective Hamiltonian $H=\sum_i T(O_i)$ with $T(O)=O^T O$, built from latent-space representations of the differential operator and the data constraints in the Chebyshev basis. Its ingredients are the Chebyshev differentiation matrix $G_n^T$ (a constant upper-triangular matrix that turns $d/dx$ into matrix multiplication), the quantum Chebyshev feature map $|\tau(x)\rangle$ that labels basis polynomials and makes overlaps measurable, the constant mapping matrices $M_1,M_x,\ldots,N_1,N_x$ that promote products $x^p\langle\tau(x)|$ or tensor products $\langle\tau(x)|\otimes\langle\tau(x)|$ to a higher-dimensional Chebyshev basis, and rank-one data-constraint operators $B_n(x)$, $D_n^{(0)}(x)$ that pin boundary values or nonzero anchors. These pieces convert every term of a linear or nonlinear differential equation into an $x$-independent operator, so the equation holds exactly when the state lies in the null space of the sum; the Gram construction turns that null-space condition into a ground-state condition. Ground-state preparation uses quantum imaginary-time evolution (QITE) implemented with quantum singular value transformation (QSVT) applied to a block-encoding of $H$, and overlap readout uses an interferometric measurement of $|\langle 0_a\tau(x)|\psi_G\rangle|^2$.

What would settle it

Run the effective-Hamiltonian construction for a nonlinear example such as Eq. (29) or Eq. (34) on a small register, start imaginary-time evolution from several distinct initial states (the all-zero state, a random product state, and a superposition), and check whether the prepared state always lies in the product subspace $|\psi\rangle\otimes|\psi\rangle$ and yields the same rescaled overlap solution. If any initial state converges to an entangled zero-energy state with a different overlap profile, or if the reported solution is not reproduced, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a differential equation can be recast as an eigenvalue problem $H|\psi_g\rangle=\lambda_{\min}|\psi_g\rangle$ with $\lambda_{\min}\approx 0$, where the effective Hamiltonian $H$ is formed by summing Gram matrices $T(A)=A^T A$ of latent-space operators that represent the equation, invariant boundary conditions, and regular data constraints. In the Chebyshev basis, differentiation becomes the constant matrix $G_n^T$, variable coefficients and multiplication by $x^p$ become constant mappings $M_{x^p}$, and data constraints become rank-one operators $B_n(x)$. Once $H$ is formed, the algorithm prepares its ground state by quantum imaginary-time evolution implemented through quantum singular value transformation, and evaluates the solution as an overlap $f_Q(x)=\sqrt{\eta_e}\,\langle\tau(x)|\psi_g\rangle$; the scaling factor $\sqrt{\eta_e}$ is fixed by a single nonzero data point. The paper demonstrates this workflow on constant- and variable-coefficient ODEs, inhomogeneous ODEs, Laplace, heat, and wave equations, and two nonlinear ODEs, including one with no closed-form solution. The stated consequence is a variational-free DE solver whose cost is set by block-encoding the Hamiltonian and preparing its ground state.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that for nonlinear equations the ground state prepared by imaginary-time evolution is the product state $|\psi_g\rangle\otimes|\psi_g\rangle$ whose two factors coincide with the solution, even though the doubled-space Hamiltonian has at least $2^{2n-1}$ degenerate zero-energy eigenstates and no argument is given that evolution selects the product state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A broad family of linear ODEs and PDEs (constant- and variable-coefficient, inhomogeneous, Laplace, heat, wave) can be solved by the same workflow: build the effective Hamiltonian, prepare its ground state, and read out overlaps, with no grid and no variational loop.
  • Solutions are available at arbitrary points $x$ in the domain, because the Chebyshev feature map labels continuous positions rather than discrete grid points.
  • Nonlinear ODEs are reduced to ground-state preparation on a doubled Hilbert space, with the entangling term $G_n^T\otimes G_n^T$ encoding the quadratic nonlinearity; this extends the effective-Hamiltonian construction beyond linear problems.
  • Because preparation uses QITE/QSVT rather than variational search, the algorithm inherits the scaling and state-preparation guarantees of quantum linear-algebra methods, with block-encoding circuits that are polynomial in the number of qubits.
  • The Chebyshev-space model can be mapped to real space on an extended register, yielding fine-grid solutions without requiring the grid during the solving stage.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the degeneracy-selection issue is settled, the same construction could extend to systems of equations and higher-order nonlinearities via higher-order tensor products of the differentiation matrix, though the degenerate zero-energy subspace will grow correspondingly.
  • The overlap readout turns the solver into a quantum data source: a user can query $f_Q(x)$ at chosen points and use those samples to train classical surrogates, sidestepping full state tomography.
  • A testable consequence is that the quality of the nonlinear solution should depend on the initial state used for imaginary-time evolution; if different initial states converge to different zero-energy states with different overlap profiles, the product-state selection claim is not automatic.
  • The construction may transfer to other polynomial bases with real constant differentiation matrices and efficient feature maps, since those are the only basis-specific requirements; the paper demonstrates the Chebyshev case only.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantum algorithm for solving linear and nonlinear differential equations by encoding the problem into the ground state of a positive semi-definite 'effective Hamiltonian' H constructed in a Chebyshev latent space. The Hamiltonian is formed as a sum of Gram matrices of differential operators and data constraints, and the solution is read out through overlap measurements with Chebyshev feature states. Ground state preparation is proposed via quantum imaginary-time evolution implemented with QSVT. The method is demonstrated on second-order ODEs with constant and variable coefficients, inhomogeneous ODEs, the Laplace, heat, and wave equations, and two nonlinear ODEs. The linear constructions are algebraically transparent and match the analytic solutions in the presented small-scale examples; the nonlinear construction relies on a doubled Hilbert space and on an unproven assumption that the relevant zero-energy eigenstate is the product state |ψ_g>⊗|ψ_g>.

Significance. If the construction were established for nonlinear equations, the approach would offer a non-variational quantum DE solver that combines compact spectral representations with ground-state preparation and function evaluation beyond grid points. The paper's strengths are the explicit construction of the Chebyshev latent-space operators, the block-encoding circuits for derivative and data-constraint matrices, and the clear demonstration that several canonical linear problems can be mapped to ground-state preparation. The manuscript also explicitly acknowledges in the Discussion that the spectral gaps of the effective Hamiltonians are problem-dependent and 'not easy to bound', which tempers the abstract's speed-up claim. However, the nonlinear extension, advertised as a central novelty, is not currently justified, and no complexity analysis or convergence data is provided. The derivations are explicit enough that the linear examples can be checked from the given matrices, but no machine-checkable proofs or reproducible code are supplied.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, text after Eq. (33)] The central claim of the nonlinear section is that the solution of the NDE is encoded in the product state |ψ_g>⊗|ψ_g>, asserted to be the ground state of the doubled-space effective Hamiltonian H. This is not established. The text itself notes that H has at least 2^(2n−1) degenerate zero-energy states, and Methods Sec. 6 acknowledges 'discarding' the degenerate states. Quantum imaginary-time evolution with exp(−τH) maps an arbitrary initial state onto the projector onto the full zero-energy eigenspace; it contains no mechanism that favors product states over entangled zero-energy states. No symmetry argument, spectral analysis, or initialization analysis is provided. Consequently the numerical agreement in Figs. 7(b,c) only confirms that the product state is a zero-energy state, not that the algorithm prepares it, and the nonlinear results are not yet justified.
  2. [Abstract and Discussion (fourth paragraph)] The abstract's claim of 'provable speed-up for state preparation' is unsupported. The only related statement in the paper is the generic near-optimal ground-state preparation result of Ref. [109], whose runtime depends on the spectral gap Δ, while the Discussion explicitly states that gaps of the effective Hamiltonians are problem-dependent and 'not easy to bound.' No complexity analysis of the overall algorithm, the block-encoding costs, or the gap of the constructed H is given. The phrase 'provable speed-up' should either be removed or substantiated with concrete bounds for the constructed Hamiltonians.
  3. [Core idea section, paragraph beginning 'For each latent space constrain...'] The statement that H is 'a real symmetric positive-definite matrix with distinct eigenvalues' is internally inconsistent with Section V, where H is explicitly described as having at least 2^(2n−1) degenerate zero eigenvalues. Even in the linear constructions, H is positive semi-definite and can have degenerate eigenvalues whenever multiple functions satisfy the differential and invariant constraints. The sentence should be revised to acknowledge positive semi-definiteness and possible degeneracy.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (30) and surrounding text] The notation changes from √η in Eq. (2) to η in Eq. (30) without explanation. Please clarify how the scaling of the doubled-space overlap relates to the normalization ⟨ψ|n|ψ⟩n = 1 and to the final rescaling factor ηe.
  2. [Methods, Sec. 6] The phrase 'After discarding the 2^(2n) degenerate zero-energy states, we can find the ground state' is not an algorithmic instruction; no physical operation or circuit is proposed that would 'discard' a subspace. This should be rewritten to describe a concrete symmetry projection or an explicit preparation protocol.
  3. [Results, Section V, Eq. (34)] For Eq. (34), the regular constraint f(xs=0.5) is used to set the scale, but the value f(0.5) from the numerical solution is not given in the problem statement. The demonstration therefore relies on information about the unknown solution; the paper should state this explicitly and discuss how such data would be obtained in practice.
  4. [Methods, Sec. 8 (Pulser demonstration)] The hardware demonstration prepares simple two-qubit states that are not shown to be the ground states of any effective Hamiltonian for the Legendre equation under consideration. The connection between the pulse sequence and the proposed algorithm should be clarified or the section removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: effective Hamiltonians are built from fixed Chebyshev operators and data constraints, and the scaling factor is a post-hoc normalization, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce any predicted quantity to an input by construction. Effective Hamiltonians are assembled as H = T(A) + T(data-constraint terms), where A uses fixed Chebyshev differentiation matrices G_n and multiplication matrices M_x, N_1, N_x; none of these matrices are fitted to the target function or to the reported solutions. Ground states are prepared by QITE/QSVT acting on H, which is an independent subroutine whose output is then compared with analytical or numerical solutions. The scaling factor sqrt(eta_e) = f(x_s)/f_q^*(x_s) is a one-point normalization applied after obtaining the unnormalized overlap, so it is a post-processing constant rather than a parameter whose fit forces the solution. In the nonlinear section, the known value f(x_s) appears inside D^(0)_n(x_s) in H, but this is a boundary/data constraint used to encode the problem, not a fitted parameter, and the same value is subsequently used only to fix the overall scale. The paper honestly acknowledges that the doubled-space Hamiltonian has at least 2^(2n-1) degenerate zero-energy states and that the desired state is a particular product state |psi_g> otimes |psi_g>; the lack of a proof that QITE selects this product state is a correctness or justification gap, not circularity, because the Hamiltonian is not defined in terms of the output overlap. Self-citations to prior work for the Chebyshev feature map and differentiation matrices provide reproducible mathematical constructions rather than unverified premises, and the central linear results are checked against external analytical solutions. Therefore no circular step is exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Chebyshev approximation plus several domain assumptions: the feature map circuit, the differentiation matrix, truncation accuracy, ground-state preparation, and, for nonlinear problems, a product-state ground state. The latter is the most fragile and is unproven. The free parameters are mostly the choices of demonstration (DCI locations, truncation, evolution times) rather than fitted constants in a model.

free parameters (5)
  • Scaling factor η_e = 1.29, 32.47, 451.71, etc. (per example)
    Determined after ground state preparation from a single data point f(xs) via η_e = f(xs)/f*_q(xs); sets the overall amplitude of the solution.
  • Invariant constraint location xz or xm = e.g., -1, 0, 0.333, -0.2, 0.02615
    Chosen by hand for each example, usually at a zero or zero-slope of the known analytical solution. The algorithm requires such a point to exist and be known.
  • Truncation degree n (qubit count) and source truncation p̄ = n=3,4,5; p̄=3,5,7
    Selected per problem to achieve good agreement; no convergence or error analysis is provided.
  • QITE evolution time t and QSP polynomial degrees (de, do) = t=15,8; (de,do)=(6,7)
    Chosen to approximate e^{-tH} for the ground state preparation; success depends on the spectral gap, which is not bounded.
  • Regular constraint value f(xs) entering nonlinear H = e.g., f(0)=1
    In nonlinear examples, D(0)_n(xs)=B_n(xs)/f(xs) appears inside H, so a known nonzero data value must be supplied (usually a boundary condition).
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Chebyshev polynomials T_k form a complete orthogonal basis for smooth functions on [-1,1]
    Used to represent the solution as a truncated Chebyshev expansion (Section 'Technical details').
  • domain assumption The quantum Chebyshev feature map U_τ(x) prepares |τ(x)⟩ with post-selection
    Adopted from Ref [106]; the paper relies on this circuit for basis-state preparation and overlap measurement.
  • standard math The differentiation matrix G_n exactly maps coefficients to derivatives in the truncated Chebyshev basis
    Eq. (4) and SM section A define G_n; exactness follows from Chebyshev derivative identities.
  • domain assumption Truncation at degree 2^n gives a sufficiently accurate approximation of the true solution for the tested problems
    No error bounds are given; results are validated only by comparison to analytical solutions.
  • domain assumption QITE/QSVT with finite evolution time t prepares the zero-energy ground state of H
    Preparation time depends on the spectral gap, which the paper explicitly does not bound (Discussion).
  • ad hoc to paper For nonlinear DEs, the ground state of the doubled-space H is the product state |ψ_g⟩⊗|ψ_g⟩ encoding the solution
    Stated in Section V; no proof that QITE selects this state from the degenerate zero-energy manifold.
  • domain assumption A known zero (or zero slope) of the solution is available to serve as DCI, or the dependent variable can be shifted using a known boundary value
    Used in every example (e.g., f(xz=-1), f'(xm=0)) and for the no-zero-crossing workaround in Section 7 of Methods.
  • domain assumption Source functions r(x) can be represented by a truncated Maclaurin series
    Eq. (14) truncates at p̄ terms; accuracy depends on the function.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum algorithm for solving nonlinear differential equations based on physics-informed effective Hamiltonians." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZINY4DMS

@misc{pith2026250413174,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum algorithm for solving nonlinear differential equations based on physics-informed effective Hamiltonians},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZINY4DMS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13174}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a distinct approach to solving linear and nonlinear differential equations (DEs) on quantum computers by encoding the problem into ground states of effective Hamiltonian operators. Our algorithm relies on constructing such operators in the Chebyshev space, where an effective Hamiltonian is a sum of global differential and data constraints. Once the effective Hamiltonian is formed, solutions of differential equations can be obtained using the ground state preparation techniques (e.g. imaginary-time evolution and quantum singular value transformation), bypassing variational search. Unlike approaches based on discrete grids, the algorithm enables evaluation of solutions beyond fixed grid points and implements constraints in the physics-informed way. Our proposal inherits the best traits from quantum machine learning-based DE solving (compact basis representation, automatic differentiation, nonlinearity) and quantum linear algebra-based approaches (fine-grid encoding, provable speed-up for state preparation), offering a robust strategy for quantum scientific computing in the early fault-tolerant era.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13174 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: ], this ODE has an analytical solution f(x) = P 0 l (x), the Legendre polynomials, as shown in the black dashed curves. DCI = {f ′ (xm = 0)} and {f(xz = 0)} are applied to the cases of even and odd integers of l, respectively. Thus we have the corresponding effective H…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (c). Overall, the ability to represent quantum states in a higher￾dimensional Hilbert space is the pivoting point for address￾ing NDEs in the degenerate eigenspace of H for the proposed framework. DISCUSSION Let us reflect on choices made when designing the algo￾rithm,…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Pulse sequence to prepare the state Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Fourier space readout method for efficiently recovering functions encoded in quantum states

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Measuring a quantum state's Fourier coefficients, rather than its grid-point amplitudes, recovers smooth amplitude-encoded functions with shot count independent of grid size, preserving quantum speedups for CAE readout.

  2. Quantics Tensor Train for solving Gross-Pitaevskii equation

    cond-mat.quant-gas 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A quantics tensor train framework solves the 1D Gross-Pitaevskii equation, including multi-species and long-range interactions, with polylogarithmic scaling of storage and operations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

156 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [109]

    Kasture, O

    S. Kasture, O. Kyriienko, and V . E. Elfving, Protocols for clas- sically training quantum generative models on probability dis- tributions, Phys. Rev. A 108, 042406 (2023)

    2023

  2. [1]

    (13) to find the latent representation of r(x)

    We follow the same procedures as described above and use Eq. (13) to find the latent representation of r(x). The quantum model of Eq. (21) is ⟨τ(x)|n+1 √ηA|ψ⟩n = 0, where A = (Mx− M1)GT n 2− MxGT n + M1− (Mx2− 2Mx + M1)D(0) n (xs) is a data-encoded matrix given with an arbitrary regular constraint f (xs) , 0. With the supplied DCI, the lowest-energy eigen...

  3. [2]

    We use quantum signal processing (QSP) [143] and quantum singular value transformation (QSVT) [110, 111] to realize QITE

    Quantum imaginary-time evolution As soon as the e ffective Hamiltonian operator H is ready, the lowest/zero energy eigenstate (ground state) can be pre- pared by the quantum imaginary-time evolution (QITE) [107]. We use quantum signal processing (QSP) [143] and quantum singular value transformation (QSVT) [110, 111] to realize QITE. We first search for th...

  4. [3]

    Block encoding of structured and sparse matrices We construct both data constraint and Chebyshev differenti- ation circuits via block encoding approaches that often require linear combination of unitaries [48, 115]. Since D(0) n (xs) = Bn(xs)/ f (xs) is a structured and sparse matrix dependent on n and xs, the implementation o ˆU( ˜D(0) n (xs)) is same as...

  5. [4]

    An exemplary ˆU( ˜GT n ) for n = 3 is schematically illustrated in Fig

    The implementation of ˆUG = ˆU( ˜GT n ) circuit requires m + n + 3 = 2n + 3 qubits and two conditioned sub- routines that assign the matrix elements on di fferent bases. An exemplary ˆU( ˜GT n ) for n = 3 is schematically illustrated in Fig. 9. For each subroutine ˆUR and ˆUC, the bit string|i⟩ of the m register specifies the (2i+1)th superdiagonal and (i...

  6. [5]

    ˆP is a permutation cir- cuit and ˆUD(xs) is a data constraint circuit [Fig

    Quantum overlap measurement for NDE To evaluate quantum models containing quadratic nonlin- earities we use Re( fQ(x)) =ηe √ 8N3 f (xs) NC ˆOC(x) 2 − ˆOG(x) 2 − 1 4N2 ! , (39) where| ˆOG(x)|2 =|⟨0a0aø0aø| 11⊗ ˆH ⊗(n+1) ⊗ ˆU† τ(x) |ΨG⟩2n+3|2 is a probability of being in the Hadamard-Chebyshev basis state |0a⟩|+a⟩|+⟩⊗n|0a⟩|τ(x)⟩n given (2 n + 3)-qubit groun...

  7. [6]

    We use Eqs

    Quantum overlap measurement for ODE We describe a procedure for measuring overlaps and eval- uating quantum models based on e ffective Hamiltonians. We use Eqs. (36) or (37) for quantum models that contain a single variable. The real part reads Re( fQ(x)) = p ηe N NC ˆOC(x) 2 − ˆOG(x) 2 − 1 2N ! , (36) 14 H|0⟩ |0⟩ UQSP ϕ⃑,x H H|0⟩ |0⟩ H UQSP e ϕ⃑e,x UQSP ...

  8. [7]

    (38) to evaluate the quantum models containing two in- dependent variables

    Quantum overlap measurement for PDE Continuing to the multivariate case, we make use of Eq. (38) to evaluate the quantum models containing two in- dependent variables. The overlap reads as Re( fQ(x, y)) =√ηe 2N NC ˆOC(x, y) 2 − ˆOG(x, y) 2 − 1 4N2 ! , (38) where| ˆOG(x, y)|2 =|⟨0aø0aø| ˆU† τ(x)⊗ ˆU† τ(y) |ψG⟩2n+2|2 is a probability of being in the two-dim...

Show all 156 references
  1. [8]

    Specifically, two states are selected for preparation that can solve Legendre’s DEs with m = 0 [see SM and Fig

    Prepare the ground states with Pulser Given that solutions to differential equations require ground state preparation, here we consider a first task of compiling such preparation to be run on neutral atom-based hardware. Specifically, two states are selected for preparation th...

  2. [9]

    Alternative e ffective Hamiltonian workflow The beauty of the proposed physics-informed e ffective Hamiltonian consists in the capability of systemically build- ing effective Hamiltonian and expressing the ground state of a multidimensional system. Moreover, our algorithm o ff...

  3. [10]

    Handle a function without zero crossings and slopes What if the solution function has neither zero crossings nor zero slopes in the Chebyshev domain? In such a case, in- variant constraints do not exist. For example, let us consider this situation with a NDE whose analytical s...

  4. [11]

    J. P. Boyd, Chebyshev and Fourier Spectral Methods: Second Revised Edition (Dover, 2013)

    2013

  5. [12]

    G. R. Gavalas, Nonlinear Differential Equations of Chemically Reacting Systems (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1968)

    1968

  6. [13]

    Anderson, Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Basics with Applications, McGraw-Hill International Editions: Mechani- cal Engineering (McGraw-Hill, 1995)

    J. Anderson, Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Basics with Applications, McGraw-Hill International Editions: Mechani- cal Engineering (McGraw-Hill, 1995)

    1995

  7. [14]

    C. J. Greenshields and H. G. Weller, Notes on computational fluid dynamics: General principles (CFD Direct Limited, 2022)

    2022

  8. [15]

    Øksendal, Stochastic Di fferential Equations (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2003)

    B. Øksendal, Stochastic Di fferential Equations (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2003)

    2003

  9. [16]

    C. W. Gear, Numerical solution of ordinary di fferential equa- tions: Is there anything left to do?, SIAM Review 23, 10 (1981)

    1981

  10. [17]

    R. J. LeVeque, Finite Di fference Methods for Ordinary and Partial Di fferential Equations: Steady-State and Time- Dependent Problems (SIAM, 2007)

    2007

  11. [18]

    Jin, The Finite Element Method in Electromagnetics, 3rd Edition (Wiley-IEEE Press, 2014)

    J.-M. Jin, The Finite Element Method in Electromagnetics, 3rd Edition (Wiley-IEEE Press, 2014)

    2014

  12. [19]

    V oigt, D

    R. V oigt, D. Gottlieb, M. Hussaini, I. for Computer Applica- tions in Science, and Engineering, Spectral Methods for Par- tial Differential Equations, Proceedings in Applied Mathemat- ics Series (SIAM, 1984)

    1984

  13. [20]

    Saad,Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Systems(Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2003)

    Y . Saad,Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Systems(Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2003)

    2003

  14. [21]

    Wesseling, An Introduction to Multigrid Methods , PURE and APPLIED MATHEMATICS: a WILEY INTERSCIENCE SERIES of TEXTS MONOGRAP HS and TRACTS Series (Wiley, 1992)

    P. Wesseling, An Introduction to Multigrid Methods , PURE and APPLIED MATHEMATICS: a WILEY INTERSCIENCE SERIES of TEXTS MONOGRAP HS and TRACTS Series (Wiley, 1992)

    1992

  15. [22]

    G.-J. Both, S. Choudhury, P. Sens, and R. Kusters, Deepmod: Deep learning for model discovery in noisy data, Journal of Computational Physics 428, 109985 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Moin and K

    P. Moin and K. Mahesh, Direct numerical simulation: A tool in turbulence research, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics30, 539 (1998)

    1998

  17. [25]

    A. J. Smits, B. J. McKeon, and I. Marusic, High–reynolds number wall turbulence, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 43, 353 (2011)

    2011

  18. [26]

    Schumacher, Lagrangian studies in convective turbulence, Phys

    J. Schumacher, Lagrangian studies in convective turbulence, Phys. Rev. E 79, 056301 (2009)

    2009

  19. [27]

    O. T. Schmidt, A. Towne, G. Rigas, T. Colonius, and G. A. Br`es, Spectral analysis of jet turbulence, Journal of Fluid Me- chanics 855, 953–982 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    M. V . ZAGAROLA and A. J. SMITS, Mean-flow scaling of turbulent pipe flow, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 373, 33–79 (1998)

    1998

  21. [29]

    Eivazi, Y

    H. Eivazi, Y . Wang, and R. Vinuesa, Physics-informed deep- learning applications to experimental fluid mechanics, Mea- surement Science and Technology 35, 075303 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    S. L. Brunton, B. R. Noack, and P. Koumoutsakos, Machine learning for fluid mechanics, Annual Review of Fluid Mechan- ics 52, 477 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Duraisamy, G

    K. Duraisamy, G. Iaccarino, and H. Xiao, Turbulence model- ing in the age of data, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 51, 357 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    S. H. Rudy, S. L. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, and J. N. Kutz, Data-driven discovery of partial di fferential equations, Science Advances 3, e1602614 (2017), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.1602614

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    P. J. Baddoo, B. Herrmann, B. J. McKeon, J. Nathan Kutz, and S. L. Brunton, Physics-informed dynamic mode decom- 18 position, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 479, 20220576 (2023), https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10...

    2023

  26. [34]

    Z. Chen, Y . Liu, and H. Sun, Physics-informed learning of governing equations from scarce data, Nature Communica- tions 12, 6136 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Str ¨ofer, Michel ´en, J.-L

    C. Str ¨ofer, Michel ´en, J.-L. Wu, H. Xiao, and E. Paterson, Data-driven, physics-based feature extraction from fluid flow fields using convolutional neural networks, Communications in Computational Physics 25, 625 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Obayashi, H

    W. Obayashi, H. Aono, T. Tatsukawa, and K. Fujii, Feature extraction of fields of fluid dynamics data us- ing sparse convolutional autoencoder, AIP Advances 11, 105211 (2021), https: //pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0065637/19731267/105211 1 online.pdf

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    Unnikrishnan, Recent advances in feature extraction tech- niques for high-speed flowfields, Progress in Aerospace Sci- ences 140, 100918 (2023)

    S. Unnikrishnan, Recent advances in feature extraction tech- niques for high-speed flowfields, Progress in Aerospace Sci- ences 140, 100918 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Raissi, P

    M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G. Karniadakis, Physics- informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear par- tial differential equations, Journal of Computational Physics 378, 686 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Raissi, A

    M. Raissi, A. Yazdani, and G. E. Karniadakis, Hidden fluid mechanics: Learning velocity and pressure fields from flow visualizations, Science 367, 1026 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    S. Cai, Z. Wang, S. Wang, P. Perdikaris, and G. E. Karniadakis, Physics-informed neural networks for heat transfer problems, Journal of Heat Transfer 143, 060801 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Eivazi, M

    H. Eivazi, M. Tahani, P. Schlatter, and R. Vinuesa, Physics- informed neural networks for solving Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations, Physics of Fluids 34, 075117 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Z. Li, N. Kovachki, K. Azizzadenesheli, B. Liu, K. Bhat- tacharya, A. Stuart, and A. Anandkumar, Fourier neural opera- tor for parametric partial differential equations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08895 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    X. Jin, S. Cai, H. Li, and G. E. Karniadakis, Nsfnets (navier- stokes flow nets): Physics-informed neural networks for the incompressible navier-stokes equations, Journal of Computa- tional Physics 426, 109951 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Montanaro and S

    A. Montanaro and S. Pallister, Quantum algorithms and the finite element method, Phys. Rev. A 93, 032324 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    M. Lino, S. Fotiadis, A. A. Bharath, and C. D. Cantwell, Multi-scale rotation-equivariant graph neural networks for unsteady eulerian fluid dynamics, Physics of Fluids 34, 087110 (2022), https: //pubs.aip.org/aip/pof/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0097679/19818588/087110 1 online.pdf

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    J. D. Toscano, V . Oommen, A. J. Varghese, Z. Zou, N. A. Daryakenari, C. Wu, and G. E. Karniadakis, From pinns to pikans: Recent advances in physics-informed machine learn- ing (2024), arXiv:2410.13228 [cs.LG]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Rackauckas, Y

    C. Rackauckas, Y . Ma, J. Martensen, C. Warner, K. Zubov, R. Supekar, D. Skinner, A. Ramadhan, and A. Edelman, Uni- versal di fferential equations for scientific machine learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.04385 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Takamoto, T

    M. Takamoto, T. Praditia, R. Leiteritz, D. MacKinlay, F. Alesiani, D. Pfl ¨uger, and M. Niepert, Pdebench: An ex- tensive benchmark for scientific machine learning (2024), arXiv:2210.07182 [cs.LG]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Biamonte, P

    J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Quantum machine learning, Nature 549, 195 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    A. M. Dalzell, S. McArdle, M. Berta, P. Bienias, C.-F. Chen, A. Gily´en, C. T. Hann, M. J. Kastoryano, E. T. Khabiboulline, A. Kubica, G. Salton, S. Wang, and F. G. S. L. Brand˜ao, Quan- tum algorithms: A survey of applications and end-to-end com- plexities (2023), arXiv:2310....

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Au-Yeung, B

    R. Au-Yeung, B. Camino, O. Rathore, and V . Kendon, Quan- tum algorithms for scientific computing, Reports on Progress in Physics 87, 116001 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations, Physical review letters 103, 150502 (2009)

    2009

  45. [53]

    M. E. S. Morales, L. Pira, P. Schleich, K. Koor, P. C. S. Costa, D. An, A. Aspuru-Guzik, L. Lin, P. Rebentrost, and D. W. Berry, Quantum linear system solvers: A survey of algorithms and applications (2025), arXiv:2411.02522 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Y . Cao, A. Papageorgiou, I. Petras, J. Traub, and S. Kais, Quantum algorithm and circuit design solving the poisson equation, New Journal of Physics 15, 013021 (2013)

    2013

  47. [55]

    Subas ¸ı, R

    Y . Subas ¸ı, R. D. Somma, and D. Orsucci, Quantum algorithms for systems of linear equations inspired by adiabatic quantum computing, Physical Review Letters 122, 060504 (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    T. Xin, S. Wei, J. Cui, J. Xiao, I. n. Arrazola, L. Lamata, X. Kong, D. Lu, E. Solano, and G. Long, Quantum algorithm for solving linear di fferential equations: Theory and experi- ment, Phys. Rev. A 101, 032307 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    Martin, R

    A. Martin, R. Ibarrondo, and M. Sanz, Digital-analog co- design of the harrow-hassidim-lloyd algorithm, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 064056 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    A. M. Childs, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, Quantum algo- rithm for systems of linear equations with exponentially im- proved dependence on precision, SIAM Journal on Computing 46, 1920 (2017)

    2017

  51. [59]

    A. M. Childs and N. Wiebe, Hamiltonian simulation using lin- ear combinations of unitary operations, Quantum Info. Com- put. 12, 901–924 (2012)

    2012

  52. [60]

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, A. Ostrander, and G. Wang, Quan- tum algorithm for linear di fferential equations with exponen- tially improved dependence on precision, Communications in Mathematical Physics 356, 1057 (2017)

    2017

  53. [61]

    Jennings, M

    D. Jennings, M. Lostaglio, S. Pallister, A. T. Sornborger, and Y . Subas ¸ı, Efficient quantum linear solver algorithm with de- tailed running costs (2023), arXiv:2305.11352 [quant-ph]

    2023

  54. [62]

    Gribling, I

    S. Gribling, I. Kerenidis, and D. Szil ´agyi, An optimal linear-combination-of-unitaries-based quantum linear sys- tem solver, ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing 5, 10.1145/3649320 (2024)

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    Lin and Y

    L. Lin and Y . Tong, Optimal polynomial based quantum eigen- state filtering with application to solving quantum linear sys- tems, Quantum 4, 361 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    Linden, A

    N. Linden, A. Montanaro, and C. Shao, Quantum vs. classical algorithms for solving the heat equation, Communications in Mathematical Physics 395, 601 (2022)

    2022

  57. [65]

    Krovi, Improved quantum algorithms for linear and nonlin- ear differential equations, Quantum 7, 913 (2023)

    H. Krovi, Improved quantum algorithms for linear and nonlin- ear differential equations, Quantum 7, 913 (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    Another qualitative improvement for implementing bound- ary and data constraints can come from the use of quantum data [102]

    with improved efficiency and convergence. Another qualitative improvement for implementing bound- ary and data constraints can come from the use of quantum data [102]. So far we have followed the approach of data- loading for classically specified constraints (functions), as f...

  59. [67]

    P. C. Costa, D. An, Y . R. Sanders, Y . Su, R. Babbush, and D. W. Berry, Optimal scaling quantum linear-systems solver via discrete adiabatic theorem, PRX Quantum 3, 040303 (2022)

    2022

  60. [68]

    An and L

    D. An and L. Lin, Quantum linear system solver based on time-optimal adiabatic quantum computing and quantum approximate optimization algorithm, ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing 3, 10.1145/3498331 (2022)

    2022 doi

  61. [69]

    P. C. S. Costa, P. Schleich, M. E. S. Morales, and D. W. Berry, Further improving quantum algorithms for nonlinear differen- tial equations via higher-order methods and rescaling (2023), arXiv:2312.09518 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Pfe ffer, F

    P. Pfe ffer, F. Heyder, and J. Schumacher, Hybrid quantum- classical reservoir computing of thermal convection flow, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033176 (2022)

    2022

  63. [71]

    Pfe ffer, F

    P. Pfe ffer, F. Heyder, and J. Schumacher, Reduced-order modeling of two-dimensional turbulent rayleigh-b ´enard flow by hybrid quantum-classical reservoir computing, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043242 (2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and Y . Yu, Quantum simulation of partial dif- ferential equations: Applications and detailed analysis, Phys. Rev. A 108, 032603 (2023)

    2023

  65. [73]

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and Y . Yu, Quantum simulation of partial dif- ferential equations via schrodingerisation: technical details (2022), arXiv:2212.14703 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Jin and N

    S. Jin and N. Liu, Analog quantum simulation of partial dif- ferential equations (2023), arXiv:2308.00646 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Jin and N

    S. Jin and N. Liu, Quantum simulation of discrete linear dy- namical systems and simple iterative methods in linear algebra via schrodingerisation (2023), arXiv:2304.02865 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    J. Hu, S. Jin, N. Liu, and L. Zhang, Quantum circuits for partial di fferential equations via schr ¨odingerisation (2024), arXiv:2403.10032 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    C. A. Williams, A. A. Gentile, V . E. Elfving, D. Berger, and O. Kyriienko, Quantum iterative methods for solving differen- tial equations with application to computational fluid dynam- ics (2024), arXiv:2404.08605 [quant-ph]

    2024

  70. [78]

    O. M. Raisuddin and S. De, Quantum relaxation method for linear systems in finite element problems (2023), arXiv:2308.01377 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  71. [79]

    O. M. Raisuddin and S. De, Quantum multigrid algorithm for finite element problems (2024), arXiv:2404.07466 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Jaksch, Implementation of a digitally encoded multigrid al- gorithm on a quantum computer (2022), arXiv:2201.04513 [quant-ph]

    P. Jaksch, Implementation of a digitally encoded multigrid al- gorithm on a quantum computer (2022), arXiv:2201.04513 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  73. [81]

    B. Liu, M. Ortiz, and F. Cirak, Towards quantum computa- tional mechanics, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 432, 117403 (2024). 19

    2024

  74. [82]

    Mezzacapo, M

    A. Mezzacapo, M. Sanz, L. Lamata, I. L. Egusquiza, S. Succi, and E. Solano, Quantum simulator for transport phenomena in fluid flows, Scientific Reports 5, 13153 (2015)

    2015

  75. [83]

    Succi, F

    S. Succi, F. Fillion-Gourdeau, and S. Palpacelli, Quantum lat- tice boltzmann is a quantum walk, EPJ Quantum Technology 2, 12 (2015)

    2015

  76. [84]

    B. N. Todorova and R. Steijl, Quantum algorithm for the collisionless boltzmann equation, Journal of Computational Physics 409, 109347 (2020)

    2020

  77. [85]

    Steijl, Quantum circuit implementation of multi- dimensional non-linear lattice models, Applied Sciences 13 (2023)

    R. Steijl, Quantum circuit implementation of multi- dimensional non-linear lattice models, Applied Sciences 13 (2023)

    2023

  78. [86]

    M. A. Schalkers and M. M ¨oller, E fficient and fail- safe collisionless quantum boltzmann method (2022), arXiv:2211.14269 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  79. [87]

    M. A. Schalkers and M. M ¨oller, On the importance of data encoding in quantum boltzmann methods (2023), arXiv:2302.05305 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  80. [88]

    B. Ljubomir, Quantum algorithm for the navier–stokes equa- tions by using the streamfunction-vorticity formulation and the lattice boltzmann method, International Journal of Quan- tum Information 20, 2150039 (2022)

    2022

  81. [89]

    F. E. Chrit, S. Kocherla, B. Gard, E. F. Dumitrescu, A. Alex- eev, and S. H. Bryngelson, Fully quantum algorithm for lat- tice boltzmann methods with application to partial differential equations (2023), arXiv:2305.07148 [physics.comp-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  82. [90]

    A. D. B. Zamora, L. Budinski, O. Niemim ¨aki, and V . Lahtinen, Efficient quantum lattice gas automata (2024), arXiv:2402.16488 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Au-Yeung, A

    R. Au-Yeung, A. Williams, V . Kendon, and S. Lind, Quan- tum algorithm for smoothed particle hydrodynamics, Com- puter Physics Communications 294, 108909 (2024)

    2024

  84. [92]

    Au-Yeung, V

    R. Au-Yeung, V . M. Kendon, and S. J. Lind, Quantum smoothed particle hydrodynamics algorithm inspired by quan- tum walks (2025), arXiv:2503.05393 [quant-ph]

    2025

  85. [93]

    J.-P. Liu, H. Øie Kolden, H. K. Krovi, N. F. Loureiro, K. Triv- isa, and A. M. Childs, E fficient quantum algorithm for dis- sipative nonlinear di fferential equations, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, e2026805118 (2021), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.107...

    2021 doi

  86. [94]

    Tanaka, Y

    Y . Tanaka, Y . Ito, and K. Fujii, Carleman linearization ap- proach for chemical kinetics integration using quantum com- puters, Scientific Reports 13, 4531 (2023)

    2023

  87. [95]

    Ingelmann, S

    J. Ingelmann, S. S. Bharadwaj, P. Pfe ffer, K. R. Sreeni- vasan, and J. Schumacher, Two quantum algorithms for solv- ing the one-dimensional advection-diffusion equation (2023), arXiv:2401.00326 [physics.flu-dyn]

    2023 arXiv

  88. [96]

    H.-C. Wu, J. Wang, and X. Li, Quantum algorithms for nonlin- ear dynamics: Revisiting carleman linearization with no dissi- pative conditions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12714 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Gonzalez-Conde, D

    J. Gonzalez-Conde, D. Lewis, S. S. Bharadwaj, and M. Sanz, Quantum carleman linearisation e fficiency in nonlinear fluid dynamics (2024), arXiv:2410.23057 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Sanavio, R

    C. Sanavio, R. Scatamacchia, C. de Falco, and S. Succi, Three carleman routes to the quantum simulation of classical fluids, Physics of Fluids 36, 057143 (2024)

    2024

  91. [99]

    Sanavio, E

    C. Sanavio, E. Mauri, and S. Succi, Carleman-grad approach to the quantum simulation of fluids (2024), arXiv:2406.01118 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Lubasch, J

    M. Lubasch, J. Joo, P. Moinier, M. Ki ffner, and D. Jaksch, Variational quantum algorithms for nonlinear problems, Phys- ical Review A 101, 010301 (2020)

    2020

  93. [101]

    Jaksch, P

    D. Jaksch, P. Givi, A. J. Daley, and T. Rung, Variational quantum algorithms for computational fluid dynamics (2022), arXiv:2209.04915 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  94. [102]

    A. E. Paine, V . E. Elfving, and O. Kyriienko, Physics-informed quantum machine learning: Solving nonlinear di fferential equations in latent spaces without costly grid evaluations (2023), arXiv:2308.01827 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Kyriienko, A

    O. Kyriienko, A. E. Paine, and V . E. Elfving, Solving nonlin- ear differential equations with differentiable quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. A 103, 052416 (2021)

    2021

  96. [104]

    A. E. Paine, V . E. Elfving, and O. Kyriienko, Quantum quan- tile mechanics: Solving stochastic di fferential equations for generating time-series, Advanced Quantum Technologies 6, 2300065 (2023)

    2023

  97. [105]

    A. E. Paine, V . E. Elfving, and O. Kyriienko, Quantum ker- nel methods for solving regression problems and di fferential equations, Physical Review A 107, 032428 (2023)

    2023

  98. [106]

    Markidis, On physics-informed neural networks for quan- tum computers, Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statis- tics 8 (2022)

    S. Markidis, On physics-informed neural networks for quan- tum computers, Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statis- tics 8 (2022)

    2022

  99. [107]

    N. Heim, A. Ghosh, O. Kyriienko, and V . E. Elfving, Quantum model-discovery (2021), arXiv:2111.06376 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Kyriienko, A

    O. Kyriienko, A. E. Paine, and V . E. Elfving, Protocols for trainable and differentiable quantum generative modeling, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033291 (2024)

    2024

  101. [110]

    J. J. M. de Lejarza, H.-Y . Wu, O. Kyriienko, G. Rodrigo, and M. Grossi, Quantum chebyshev probabilistic models for frag- mentation functions (2025), arXiv:2503.16073 [quant-ph]

    2025

  102. [111]

    Jaderberg, A

    B. Jaderberg, A. A. Gentile, Y . A. Berrada, E. Shishenina, and V . E. Elfving, Let quantum neural networks choose their own frequencies, Phys. Rev. A 109, 042421 (2024)

    2024

  103. [112]

    Jaderberg, A

    B. Jaderberg, A. A. Gentile, A. Ghosh, V . E. Elfving, C. Jones, D. V odola, J. Manobianco, and H. Weiss, Potential of quantum scientific machine learning applied to weather modeling, Phys. Rev. A 110, 052423 (2024)

    2024

  104. [113]

    C. A. Williams, S. Scali, A. A. Gentile, D. Berger, and O. Kyri- ienko, Addressing the readout problem in quantum differential equation algorithms with quantum scientific machine learning (2024), arXiv:2411.14259 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  105. [114]

    J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V . N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes, Nature Communications 9, 4812 (2018)

    2018

  106. [115]

    Larocca, S

    M. Larocca, S. Thanasilp, S. Wang, K. Sharma, J. Bia- monte, P. J. Coles, L. Cincio, J. R. McClean, Z. Holmes, and M. Cerezo, Barren plateaus in variational quantum computing, Nature Reviews Physics 7, 174 (2025)

    2025

  107. [116]

    patent application for the method described in this manuscript has been submitted by Pasqal with HYW and O

    A. patent application for the method described in this manuscript has been submitted by Pasqal with HYW and O. as inventors., (2025)

    2025

  108. [117]

    C. A. Williams, A. E. Paine, H.-Y . Wu, V . E. Elfving, and O. Kyriienko, Quantum chebyshev transform: Map- ping, embedding, learning and sampling distributions (2023), arXiv:2306.17026 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  109. [118]

    Motta, C

    M. Motta, C. Sun, A. T. Tan, M. J. O’Rourke, E. Ye, A. J. Min- nich, F. G. Brandao, and G. K.-L. Chan, Determining eigen- states and thermal states on a quantum computer using quan- tum imaginary time evolution, Nature Physics 16, 205 (2019)

    2019

  110. [119]

    Chi-Fang, Chen, M. J. Kastoryano, F. G. S. L. Brand ˜ao, and A. Gily ´en, Quantum thermal state preparation, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2303.18224 (2023)

    2023 doi arXiv

  111. [120]

    Lin and Y

    L. Lin and Y . Tong, Near-optimal ground state preparation, Quantum 4, 372 (2020). 20

    2020

  112. [121]

    Gily ´en, Y

    A. Gily ´en, Y . Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, Quantum sin- gular value transformation and beyond: exponential improve- ments for quantum matrix arithmetics, in Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Comput- ing, STOC 2019 (Association for Computing Ma...

    2019

  113. [122]

    J. M. Martyn, Z. M. Rossi, A. K. Tan, and I. L. Chuang, Grand unification of quantum algorithms, PRX Quantum 2, 040203 (2021)

    2021

  114. [123]

    L. N. Trefethen, Spectral Methods in MATLAB(SIAM, 2000)

    2000

  115. [124]

    L. N. Trefethen, Approximation Theory and Approximation Practice, Extended Edition (SIAM, 2019)

    2019

  116. [125]

    A. G. Rattew and B. Koczor, Preparing arbitrary continuous functions in quantum registers with logarithmic complexity (2022), arXiv:2205.00519 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  117. [126]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization, Quantum 3, 163 (2019)

    2019

  118. [127]

    Camps and R

    D. Camps and R. V . Beeumen, Fable: Fast approximate quan- tum circuits for block-encodings (2022), arXiv:2205.00081 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  119. [128]

    R. V . B. Daan Camps, Lin Lin and C. Yang, Explicit quantum circuits for block encodings of certain sparse matrices (2022), arXiv:2203.10236 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  120. [129]

    S ¨underhauf, E

    C. S ¨underhauf, E. Campbell, and J. Camps, Block-encoding structured matrices for data input in quantum computing, Quantum 8, 1226 (2024)

    2024

  121. [130]

    Lapworth and C

    L. Lapworth and C. S ¨underhauf, Preconditioned block encod- ings for quantum linear systems (2025), arXiv:2502.20908 [quant-ph]

    2025

  122. [131]

    L. K. Grover, A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’96 (Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 1996) p. 212–219

    1996

  123. [132]

    Mitarai and K

    K. Mitarai and K. Fujii, Methodology for replacing indirect measurements with direct measurements, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 013006 (2019)

    2019

  124. [133]

    Kyriienko, Quantum inverse iteration algorithm for pro- grammable quantum simulato, npj Quantum Information 6 (2020)

    O. Kyriienko, Quantum inverse iteration algorithm for pro- grammable quantum simulato, npj Quantum Information 6 (2020)

    2020

  125. [134]

    Scali, C

    S. Scali, C. Umeano, and O. Kyriienko, Quantum topological data analysis via the estimation of the density of states (2023), arXiv:2312.07115 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  126. [135]

    Wu and F

    H.-Y . Wu and F. V ollmer, Coherent multipolar amplification of chiroptical scattering and absorption from a magnetoelectric nanoparticle, Commun. Phys. 6 (2023)

    2023

  127. [136]

    Y . Liu, Z. Chen, C. Shu, P. Rebentrost, Y . Liu, S. Chew, B. Khoo, and Y . Cui, A variational quantum algorithm-based numerical method for solving potential and stokes flows, Ocean Engineering 292 (2024)

    2024

  128. [137]

    Ghisoni, F

    F. Ghisoni, F. Scala, D. Bajoni, and D. Gerace, Shadow quan- tum linear solver: A resource e fficient quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations (2024), arXiv:2409.08929 [quant- ph]

    2024

  129. [138]

    Linden, A

    N. Linden, A. Montanaro, and C. Shao, Quantum vs. classi- cal algorithms for solving the heat equation, Commun. Math. Phys 395, 601 (2022)

    2022

  130. [139]

    N. M. Guseynov, A. A. Zhukov, W. V . Pogosov, and A. V . Lebedev, Depth analysis of variational quantum algorithms for the heat equation, Phys. Rev. A 107, 052422 (2023)

    2023

  131. [140]

    S.-J. Wei, C. Wei, P. Lv, C. Shao, P. Gao, Z. Zhou, K. Li, T. Xin, and G.-L. Long, A quantum algorithm for heat conduc- tion with symmetrization, Science Bulletin 68, 494 (2023)

    2023

  132. [141]

    P. C. S. Costa, S. Jordan, and A. Ostrander, Quantum al- gorithm for simulating the wave equation, Phys. Rev. A 99, 012323 (2019)

    2019

  133. [142]

    A. Suau, G. Sta ffelbach, and H. Calandra, Practical quan- tum computing: Solving the wave equation using a quan- tum approach, ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing 2, 10.1145/3430030 (2021)

    2021 doi

  134. [143]

    H.-Y . Wu, V . E. Elfving, and O. Kyriienko, Multidimensional quantum generative modeling by quantum hartley transform, Adv Quantum Technol (2024)

    2024

  135. [144]

    Marin-Sanchez, J

    G. Marin-Sanchez, J. Gonzalez-Conde, and M. Sanz, Quan- tum algorithms for approximate function loading, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033114 (2023)

    2023

  136. [145]

    Gonzalez-Conde, T

    J. Gonzalez-Conde, T. W. Watts, P. Rodriguez-Grasa, and M. Sanz, Efficient quantum amplitude encoding of polynomial functions, Quantum 8, 1297 (2024)

    2024

  137. [146]

    Rosenkranz, E

    M. Rosenkranz, E. Brunner, G. Marin-Sanchez, N. Fitzpatrick, S. Dilkes, Y . Tang, Y . Kikuchi, and M. Benedetti, Quantum state preparation for multivariate functions, Quantum 9, 1703 (2025)

    2025

  138. [147]

    Bohun, I

    V . Bohun, I. Lukin, M. Luhanko, G. Korpas, P. J. S. D. Brouwer, M. Maksymenko, and M. Koch-Janusz, Entangle- ment scaling in matrix product state representation of smooth functions and their shallow quantum circuit approximations (2025), arXiv:2412.05202 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  139. [148]

    Umeano, A

    C. Umeano, A. E. Paine, V . E. Elfving, and O. Kyriienko, What can we learn from quantum convolutional neural net- works?, Advanced Quantum Technologies n/a, 2400325

  140. [149]

    Umeano and O

    C. Umeano and O. Kyriienko, Ground state-based quantum feature maps (2024), arXiv:2404.07174 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  141. [150]

    Umeano, S

    C. Umeano, S. Scali, and O. Kyriienko, Quantum com- munity detection via deterministic elimination (2024), arXiv:2412.13160 [quant-ph]

    2024

  142. [151]

    Scali, C

    S. Scali, C. Umeano, and O. Kyriienko, The topology of data hides in quantum thermal states, APL Quantum 1, 036106 (2024)

    2024

  143. [152]

    Henriet, L

    L. Henriet, L. Beguin, A. Signoles, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, G.-O. Reymond, and C. Jurczak, Quantum computing with neutral atoms, Quantum 4, 327 (2020), arXiv:2006.12326 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  144. [153]

    Silv ´erio, S

    H. Silv ´erio, S. Grijalva, C. Dalyac, L. Leclerc, P. J. Karalekas, N. Shammah, M. Beji, L.-P. Henry, and L. Henriet, Pulser: An open-source package for the design of pulse sequences in programmable neutral-atom arrays, Quantum 6, 629 (2022), arXiv:2104.15044 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  145. [154]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Optimal hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 010501 (2017)

    2017

  146. [155]

    Motlagh and N

    D. Motlagh and N. Wiebe, Generalized quantum signal pro- cessing, PRX Quantum 5, 020368 (2024)

    2024

  147. [156]

    G. H. Low and Y . Su, Quantum eigenvalue processing, in2024 IEEE 65th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) (IEEE, 2024) pp. 1051–1062

    2024

  148. [157]

    S ¨underhauf, Generalized quantum singular value transfor- mation (2023), arXiv:2312.00723 [quant-ph]

    C. S ¨underhauf, Generalized quantum singular value transfor- mation (2023), arXiv:2312.00723 [quant-ph]. 21 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS A. Relevant non-unitary matrices used in this work The non-unitary matrices symbolized with double-struck capital letters forn = 2 are listed he...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.