arxiv: 2604.24694 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · 🪐 quant-ph · physics.comp-ph· physics.flu-dyn

Recognition: unknown

Encoding strategies for quantum enhanced fluid simulations: opportunities and challenges

Omer Rathore , Alastair Basden , Nicholas Chancellor , Halim Kusumaatmaja

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 03:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph physics.comp-phphysics.flu-dyn

keywords quantum computingfluid dynamicsencoding strategiescomputational fluid dynamicsquantum algorithmsstate preparationnonlinear dynamicsnear-term quantum hardware

0 comments

The pith

Encoding choices for mapping fluids to quantum states determine the feasibility and structure of quantum CFD algorithms.

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

This review assesses how fluid information is represented on quantum hardware for simulations. It shows that encoding decisions control the costs of preparing states, reading results, handling boundaries, and evolving nonlinear dynamics. Compact encodings can deliver strong scaling benefits yet create severe practical bottlenecks in measurement and nonlinear operations, while more redundant representations ease some interactions and align better with current hardware. Because no encoding fits every fluid problem or platform equally well, the authors conclude that encoding must be treated as a core design choice that is revisited as the rest of the algorithm is refined.

Core claim

The central claim is that encoding strategies fundamentally shape both the quantum algorithm itself and the practical feasibility of quantum-enhanced fluid simulation. Highly compact encodings offer attractive asymptotic advantages but can introduce bottlenecks in readout, state preparation, and nonlinear processing, whereas less compact representations may simplify interactions and improve compatibility with analog and near-term hardware. No single encoding is universally optimal; suitability depends on the structure of the fluid problem, the computational objective, and the constraints of the target quantum platform. Encoding should therefore be treated as a primary design variable and re-

What carries the argument

The principal encoding paradigms that map fluid fields or particles to quantum states, which in turn dictate the costs of state preparation, measurement, boundary conditions, nonlinear term evaluation, and time stepping.

Load-bearing premise

That the encoding approaches examined in existing literature are representative of all viable options and that the identified trade-offs in preparation, measurement, and nonlinearity apply across fluid problems and hardware.

What would settle it

A side-by-side benchmark on several distinct fluid problems (laminar, turbulent, multiphase) across multiple quantum architectures that demonstrates one encoding consistently outperforms the others in total runtime or accuracy regardless of problem details or hardware constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24694 by Alastair Basden, Halim Kusumaatmaja, Nicholas Chancellor, Omer Rathore.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Summary circuit diagram for the HHL algorithm, adapted from [ view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Illustrative application examples of the Quantum Integration Algorithm to fluid and view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Performance comparison between Qade and the state of the art, neural network based view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Evolution of a Taylor–Green vortex simulated with a D3Q27 velocity set. The quantum view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Quantum circuit for the D1Q2 lattice Boltzmann implementation of the one dimensional view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Illustrative examples of application-level results in quantum and quantum-inspired fluid view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Quantum computing has emerged as a powerful potential accelerator for computational fluid dynamics (CFD), but whether this promise can be realized in practice depends on how fluid information is encoded on quantum hardware. This review provides an architecture-agnostic assessment of encoding strategies for quantum-enhanced fluid simulation, focusing on the trade-offs they impose on state preparation, measurement, boundary treatment, nonlinear dynamics, and temporal evolution. We examine the principal encoding paradigms used in the literature and relate them to representative quantum algorithms for fluid simulation. Through these examples, we show that encoding choices fundamentally shape both the algorithm itself and also the practical feasibility of quantum CFD. For example, highly compact encodings can offer attractive asymptotic advantages but might introduce severe bottlenecks in readout, state preparation, and nonlinear processing, whereas less compact representations may simplify interactions and improve compatibility with analog and near-term hardware. No single encoding is universally optimal, rather the most suitable choice depends strongly on the structure of the fluid problem, the computational objective and the constraints of the target quantum platform. We therefore argue that encoding should be treated as a primary design variable in quantum CFD and revisited iteratively throughout the design pipeline, as different algorithmic components interact and influence one another.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This review organizes existing encoding trade-offs for quantum fluid simulations and argues they should be treated as a core iterative design choice, but the generality of that advice depends on how representative the covered paradigms are.

read the letter

The main point of this paper is that encoding choices in quantum fluid simulations are not just a technical detail but shape the whole feasibility, and the authors argue they need to be a primary, revisited design variable. It pulls together the principal paradigms from the literature and connects them to the practical bottlenecks in state preparation, measurement, nonlinear dynamics, and temporal stability. The trade-off discussion is clear: compact encodings offer scaling benefits but can complicate readout and interactions, while others align better with current hardware. This synthesis is the useful part, as it relates components that are often discussed separately. The potential weakness is whether the examined encodings and examples fully represent the space. The no-universal-optimum conclusion depends on those cases capturing the key variations across different fluid problems and quantum platforms. If the literature sample is skewed toward particular flows or misses qualitatively different encodings, the prescriptive advice might not generalize as well. Being a review, it adds no new derivations or empirical checks, so the soundness comes from how well it organizes prior work. This is aimed at quantum computing researchers working on or planning fluid simulations. Someone already deep in the area might not learn much new, but it could save time for those mapping options. It deserves peer review because the topic is relevant and the framing helps organize thinking, even if it needs expansion on coverage.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reviews encoding strategies for quantum-enhanced computational fluid dynamics (CFD). It analyzes trade-offs imposed by different encodings on state preparation, measurement, boundary treatment, nonlinear dynamics, and temporal evolution, relating them to representative quantum algorithms. The central claim is that no single encoding is universally optimal; instead, the most suitable choice depends on the fluid problem structure, computational objectives, and target hardware platform. The authors argue that encoding should be treated as a primary design variable revisited iteratively throughout the quantum CFD design pipeline.

Significance. If the assessment of trade-offs holds, the paper provides a useful architecture-agnostic synthesis for an emerging interdisciplinary field. By emphasizing encoding as a design choice rather than a fixed input, it can help researchers avoid suboptimal implementations and better match algorithms to hardware constraints. The review format offers a consolidated view of opportunities and challenges that may accelerate practical progress in quantum fluid simulations.

major comments (1)

The central claim that no encoding is universally optimal (and thus that encoding must be treated as a primary, iteratively revisited design variable) is load-bearing for the prescriptive recommendation in the abstract and conclusion. This claim depends on the examined paradigms being representative of variations in state-preparation cost, measurement overhead, nonlinear processing, and stability across fluid problem classes. The manuscript should explicitly address the scope of the literature sample and discuss potential biases (e.g., toward incompressible or low-Reynolds-number flows) to strengthen generalizability; without this, the observed trade-offs may not apply broadly.

minor comments (2)

A summary table comparing the principal encoding paradigms across the key metrics (state preparation, measurement, nonlinear terms, etc.) would improve readability and allow readers to quickly assess the trade-offs discussed.
The abstract states the main conclusion clearly but could briefly name one or two concrete encoding examples to ground the discussion for readers unfamiliar with the subfield.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation of the manuscript's significance and for the constructive major comment. We agree that an explicit discussion of the literature scope and potential biases will strengthen the generalizability of our central claim. We address the point below and will incorporate the suggested revision.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The central claim that no encoding is universally optimal (and thus that encoding must be treated as a primary, iteratively revisited design variable) is load-bearing for the prescriptive recommendation in the abstract and conclusion. This claim depends on the examined paradigms being representative of variations in state-preparation cost, measurement overhead, nonlinear processing, and stability across fluid problem classes. The manuscript should explicitly address the scope of the literature sample and discuss potential biases (e.g., toward incompressible or low-Reynolds-number flows) to strengthen generalizability; without this, the observed trade-offs may not apply broadly.

Authors: We appreciate this observation and agree that explicitly delineating the scope of the examined literature will make the generalizability of our conclusions more transparent. The review surveys the principal encoding paradigms that have appeared in the quantum CFD literature to date; these paradigms have been developed predominantly for incompressible and low-to-moderate Reynolds-number flows because those regimes currently admit the most mature quantum algorithms. To address the referee's concern, we will add a concise paragraph (or short subsection) in the introduction that (i) describes the literature sample, (ii) notes the predominant focus on incompressible Navier-Stokes problems, and (iii) discusses how the identified trade-offs may or may not extend to compressible flows, high-Reynolds-number turbulence, or other regimes where quantum approaches remain less developed. This revision will clarify the conditions under which our prescriptive recommendation holds while acknowledging current limitations in the field. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in review of encoding strategies

full rationale

This is a literature review paper that surveys principal encoding paradigms from prior work, relates them to quantum algorithms for fluid simulation, and identifies trade-offs in state preparation, measurement, boundary handling, nonlinear processing, and temporal evolution. The central claim that no single encoding is universally optimal follows directly from the diversity of examples examined in the cited literature rather than any self-referential equations, fitted parameters presented as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. No derivation chain reduces by construction to the paper's own inputs; the analysis remains self-contained against external benchmarks in the reviewed sources.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This review paper does not introduce new mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, or postulated entities; assessments rest on cited prior literature.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5519 in / 983 out tokens · 64744 ms · 2026-05-08T03:49:36.342391+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

170 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

Simulating physics with computers.International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 21(6/7), 1982

Richard P Feynman. Simulating physics with computers.International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 21(6/7), 1982

1982
[2]

Quantum many-body simulations on digital quantum computers: State-of-the-art and future challenges.Nature Communications, 15(1):2123, 2024

Benedikt Fauseweh. Quantum many-body simulations on digital quantum computers: State-of-the-art and future challenges.Nature Communications, 15(1):2123, 2024

2024
[3]

Commercial applications of quantum computing.EPJ quantum technology, 8(1):2, 2021

Francesco Bova, Avi Goldfarb, and Roger G Melko. Commercial applications of quantum computing.EPJ quantum technology, 8(1):2, 2021

2021
[4]

Forthcoming applications of quantum computing: peeking into the future.IET Quantum Communication, 1(2):35–41, 2020

Vikas Hassija, Vinay Chamola, Adit Goyal, Salil S Kanhere, and Nadra Guizani. Forthcoming applications of quantum computing: peeking into the future.IET Quantum Communication, 1(2):35–41, 2020

2020
[5]

Industry quantum computing applications.EPJ Quantum Technology, 8(1):25, 2021

Andreas Bayerstadler, Guillaume Becquin, Julia Binder, Thierry Botter, Hans Ehm, Thomas Ehmer, Marvin Erdmann, Norbert Gaus, Philipp Harbach, Maximilian Hess, et al. Industry quantum computing applications.EPJ Quantum Technology, 8(1):25, 2021. 31 REFERENCES Rathoreet al

2021
[6]

Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack.Physical review letters, 79(2):325, 1997

Lov K Grover. Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack.Physical review letters, 79(2):325, 1997

1997
[7]

Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring

Peter W Shor. Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring. In Proceedings 35th annual symposium on foundations of computer science, pages 124–134. Ieee, 1994

1994
[8]

Butterworth-Heinemann, 2015

Jiri Blazek.Computational fluid dynamics: principles and applications. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2015

2015
[9]

Review of computational fluid dynamics applications in biotechnology processes.Biotechnology progress, 27(6):1497–1510, 2011

C Sharma, D Malhotra, and AS Rathore. Review of computational fluid dynamics applications in biotechnology processes.Biotechnology progress, 27(6):1497–1510, 2011

2011
[10]

A review: Fundamentals of computational fluid dynamics (cfd)

Mohd Hafiz Zawawi, A Saleha, A Salwa, NH Hassan, Nazirul Mubin Zahari, Mohd Zakwan Ramli, and Zakaria Che Muda. A review: Fundamentals of computational fluid dynamics (cfd). InAIP conference proceedings, volume 2030, page 020252. AIP Publishing LLC, 2018

2030
[11]

High-performance computing to accelerate large-scale computational fluid dynamics simulations: a comprehensive study

Safae Elmisaoui, Imad Kissami, and Jean-Michel Ghidaglia. High-performance computing to accelerate large-scale computational fluid dynamics simulations: a comprehensive study. In International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Systems for Sustainable Development, pages 352–360. Springer, 2023

2023
[12]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12171 , year=

Haixin Wang, Yadi Cao, Zijie Huang, Yuxuan Liu, Peiyan Hu, Xiao Luo, Zezheng Song, Wanjia Zhao, Jilin Liu, Jinan Sun, et al. Recent advances on machine learning for computational fluid dynamics: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12171, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[13]

A review of the current state-of-the-art of quantum computing for cfd: approaches, advantages, and limitations.Aerotecnica Missili & Spazio, pages 1–18, 2025

Giulio Malinverno and Javier Blasco Alberto. A review of the current state-of-the-art of quantum computing for cfd: approaches, advantages, and limitations.Aerotecnica Missili & Spazio, pages 1–18, 2025

2025
[14]

A review of quantum machine learning and quantum-inspired applied methods to computational fluid dynamics

Cesar A Amaral, Vinícius L Oliveira, Juan PLC Salazar, and Eduardo I Duzzioni. Quantum machine learning and quantum-inspired methods applied to computational fluid dynamics: a short review.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.14099, 2025

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[15]

Quantum computing for fluids: Where do we stand?Europhysics Letters, 144(1):10001, 2023

Sauro Succi, Wael Itani, Katepalli Sreenivasan, and René Steijl. Quantum computing for fluids: Where do we stand?Europhysics Letters, 144(1):10001, 2023

2023
[16]

Turbulent flow simulation at the exascale: Opportunities and challenges workshop: August 4-5, 2015, washington, dc

Michael A Sprague, Stanislav Boldyrev, Paul Fischer, Ray Grout, William I Gustafson Jr, and Robert Moser. Turbulent flow simulation at the exascale: Opportunities and challenges workshop: August 4-5, 2015, washington, dc. 2017

2015
[17]

Integrating quantum algorithms into classical frameworks: a predictor–corrector approach using hhl

Omer Rathore, Alastair Basden, Nicholas Chancellor, and Halim Kusumaatmaja. Integrating quantum algorithms into classical frameworks: a predictor–corrector approach using hhl. Quantum Science and Technology, 10(2):025041, 2025

2025
[18]

Load balancing for high performance computing using quantum annealing.Physical Review Research, 7(1):013067, 2025

Omer Rathore, Alastair Basden, Nicholas Chancellor, and Halim Kusumaatmaja. Load balancing for high performance computing using quantum annealing.Physical Review Research, 7(1):013067, 2025

2025
[19]

Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms in the noisy intermediate-scale quantum era and beyond.Phys

Adam Callison and Nicholas Chancellor. Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms in the noisy intermediate-scale quantum era and beyond.Phys. Rev. A, 106:010101, Jul 2022

2022
[20]

How many quantum gates do gauge theories require?Physical Review D, 106(9):094504, 2022

Edison M Murairi, Michael J Cervia, Hersh Kumar, Paulo F Bedaque, and Andrei Alexandru. How many quantum gates do gauge theories require?Physical Review D, 106(9):094504, 2022

2022
[21]

Quantum-state preparation with universal gate decompositions.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 83(3):032302, 2011

Martin Plesch and Časlav Brukner. Quantum-state preparation with universal gate decompositions.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 83(3):032302, 2011

2011
[22]

State preparation and evolution in quantum computing: A perspective from hamiltonian moments.International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, 122(5):e26853, 2022

Joseph C Aulicino, Trevor Keen, and Bo Peng. State preparation and evolution in quantum computing: A perspective from hamiltonian moments.International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, 122(5):e26853, 2022

2022
[23]

A divide-and-conquer algorithm for quantum state preparation.Scientific reports, 11(1):6329, 2021

Israel F Araujo, Daniel K Park, Francesco Petruccione, and Adenilton J da Silva. A divide-and-conquer algorithm for quantum state preparation.Scientific reports, 11(1):6329, 2021. 32 REFERENCES Rathoreet al

2021
[24]

Black-box quantum state preparation without arithmetic.Physical review letters, 122(2):020502, 2019

Yuval R Sanders, Guang Hao Low, Artur Scherer, and Dominic W Berry. Black-box quantum state preparation without arithmetic.Physical review letters, 122(2):020502, 2019

2019
[25]

Muqut: Multi-constraint quantum circuit mapping on nisq computers

Debjyoti Bhattacharjee, Abdullah Ash Saki, Mahabubul Alam, Anupam Chattopadhyay, and Swaroop Ghosh. Muqut: Multi-constraint quantum circuit mapping on nisq computers. In 2019 IEEE/ACM international conference on computer-aided design (ICCAD), pages 1–7. IEEE, 2019

2019
[26]

Quantum state preparation with optimal circuit depth: Implementations and applications.Physical Review Letters, 129(23):230504, 2022

Xiao-Ming Zhang, Tongyang Li, and Xiao Yuan. Quantum state preparation with optimal circuit depth: Implementations and applications.Physical Review Letters, 129(23):230504, 2022

2022
[27]

Springer Science & Business Media, 2004

Matteo Paris and Jaroslav Rehacek.Quantum state estimation, volume 649. Springer Science & Business Media, 2004

2004
[28]

On boundary conditions for incompressible navier-stokes problems

Dietmar Rempfer. On boundary conditions for incompressible navier-stokes problems. Applied Mechanics Reviews, 59(3):107–125, 2006

2006
[29]

Immersed boundary methods.Annu

Rajat Mittal and Gianluca Iaccarino. Immersed boundary methods.Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 37(1):239–261, 2005

2005
[30]

Cambridge university press, 2010

Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang.Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press, 2010

2010
[31]

A single quantum cannot be cloned.Nature, 299(5886):802–803, 1982

William K Wootters and Wojciech H Zurek. A single quantum cannot be cloned.Nature, 299(5886):802–803, 1982

1982
[32]

Solving nonlinear differential equations with differentiable quantum circuits.Physical Review A, 103(5):052416, 2021

Oleksandr Kyriienko, Annie E Paine, and Vincent E Elfving. Solving nonlinear differential equations with differentiable quantum circuits.Physical Review A, 103(5):052416, 2021

2021
[33]

Quantum computing for nonlinear differential equations and turbulence.Nature Reviews Physics, 7(4):220–230, 2025

Felix Tennie, Sylvain Laizet, Seth Lloyd, and Luca Magri. Quantum computing for nonlinear differential equations and turbulence.Nature Reviews Physics, 7(4):220–230, 2025

2025
[34]

Further improving quantum algorithms for nonlinear differential equations via higher-order methods and rescaling.npj Quantum Information, 11(1):141, 2025

Pedro CS Costa, Philipp Schleich, Mauro ES Morales, and Dominic W Berry. Further improving quantum algorithms for nonlinear differential equations via higher-order methods and rescaling.npj Quantum Information, 11(1):141, 2025

2025
[35]

Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices.Nature Physics, 14(6):595–600, 2018

Sergio Boixo, Sergei V Isakov, Vadim N Smelyanskiy, Ryan Babbush, Nan Ding, Zhang Jiang, Michael J Bremner, John M Martinis, and Hartmut Neven. Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices.Nature Physics, 14(6):595–600, 2018

2018
[36]

Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor.Nature, 574(7779):505–510, 2019

Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando GSL Brandao, David A Buell, et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor.Nature, 574(7779):505–510, 2019

2019
[37]

Quantum supremacy is both closer and farther than it appears.arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.10749, 2018

Igor L Markov, Aneeqa Fatima, Sergei V Isakov, and Sergio Boixo. Quantum supremacy is both closer and farther than it appears.arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.10749, 2018

work page arXiv 2018
[38]

Quantum computational supremacy.Nature, 549(7671):203–209, 2017

Aram W Harrow and Ashley Montanaro. Quantum computational supremacy.Nature, 549(7671):203–209, 2017

2017
[39]

Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations.Physical review letters, 103(15):150502, 2009

Aram W Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations.Physical review letters, 103(15):150502, 2009

2009
[40]

An introduction to the conjugate gradient method without the agonizing pain

Jonathan Richard Shewchuk et al. An introduction to the conjugate gradient method without the agonizing pain. 1994

1994
[41]

A hybrid quantum-classical framework for computational fluid dynamics.Physics of Fluids, 36(12), 2024

Chuang-Chao Ye, Ning-Bo An, Teng-Yang Ma, Meng-Han Dou, Wen Bai, De-Jun Sun, Zhao-Yun Chen, and Guo-Ping Guo. A hybrid quantum-classical framework for computational fluid dynamics.Physics of Fluids, 36(12), 2024

2024
[42]

A hybrid quantum-classical CFD methodology with benchmark HHL solutions

Leigh Lapworth. A hybrid quantum-classical cfd methodology with benchmark hhl solutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.00419, 2022. 33 REFERENCES Rathoreet al

work page arXiv 2022
[43]

Solving the hele–shaw flow using the harrow–hassidim–lloyd algorithm on superconducting devices: A study of efficiency and challenges.Physics of Fluids, 36(10), 2024

Muralikrishnan Gopalakrishnan Meena, Kalyana C Gottiparthi, Justin G Lietz, Antigoni Georgiadou, and Eduardo Antonio Coello Pérez. Solving the hele–shaw flow using the harrow–hassidim–lloyd algorithm on superconducting devices: A study of efficiency and challenges.Physics of Fluids, 36(10), 2024

2024
[44]

Quantum algorithm for systems of linear equations with exponentially improved dependence on precision.SIAM Journal on Computing, 46(6):1920–1950, 2017

Andrew M Childs, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D Somma. Quantum algorithm for systems of linear equations with exponentially improved dependence on precision.SIAM Journal on Computing, 46(6):1920–1950, 2017

1920
[45]

Quantum linear system algorithm for dense matrices.Physical review letters, 120(5):050502, 2018

Leonard Wossnig, Zhikuan Zhao, and Anupam Prakash. Quantum linear system algorithm for dense matrices.Physical review letters, 120(5):050502, 2018

2018
[46]

Optimised hybrid classical-quantum algorithm for accelerated solution of sparse linear systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02408, 2024

Hakikat Singh. Optimised hybrid classical-quantum algorithm for accelerated solution of sparse linear systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02408, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[47]

Enhancing the harrow-hassidim-lloyd (hhl) algorithm in systems with large condition numbers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21641, 2024

Peniel Bertrand Tsemo, Akshaya Jayashankar, K Sugisaki, Nishanth Baskaran, Sayan Chakraborty, and VS Prasannaa. Enhancing the harrow-hassidim-lloyd (hhl) algorithm in systems with large condition numbers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21641, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[48]

Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements.Nature Physics, 16(10):1050–1057, 2020

Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill. Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements.Nature Physics, 16(10):1050–1057, 2020

2020
[49]

Experimental quantum state measurement with classical shadows.Physical Review Letters, 127(20):200501, 2021

Ting Zhang, Jinzhao Sun, Xiao-Xu Fang, Xiao-Ming Zhang, Xiao Yuan, and He Lu. Experimental quantum state measurement with classical shadows.Physical Review Letters, 127(20):200501, 2021

2021
[50]

Read the fine print.Nature Physics, 11(4):291–293, 2015

Scott Aaronson. Read the fine print.Nature Physics, 11(4):291–293, 2015

2015
[51]

Quantum algorithm for the advection–diffusion equation simulated with the lattice boltzmann method.Quantum Information Processing, 20(2):57, 2021

Ljubomir Budinski. Quantum algorithm for the advection–diffusion equation simulated with the lattice boltzmann method.Quantum Information Processing, 20(2):57, 2021

2021
[52]

Hybrid quantum algorithms for flow problems.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(49):e2311014120, 2023

Sachin S Bharadwaj and Katepalli R Sreenivasan. Hybrid quantum algorithms for flow problems.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(49):e2311014120, 2023

2023
[53]

Efficient quantum state tomography.Nature communications, 1(1):149, 2010

Marcus Cramer, Martin B Plenio, Steven T Flammia, Rolando Somma, David Gross, Stephen D Bartlett, Olivier Landon-Cardinal, David Poulin, and Yi-Kai Liu. Efficient quantum state tomography.Nature communications, 1(1):149, 2010

2010
[54]

Efficient quantum circuits for accurate state preparation of smooth, differentiable functions

Adam Holmes and Anne Y Matsuura. Efficient quantum circuits for accurate state preparation of smooth, differentiable functions. In2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), pages 169–179. IEEE, 2020

2020
[55]

Efficient quantum state preparation with walsh series.Physical Review A, 109(4):042401, 2024

Julien Zylberman and Fabrice Debbasch. Efficient quantum state preparation with walsh series.Physical Review A, 109(4):042401, 2024

2024
[56]

Quantum algorithms for computing observables of nonlinear partial differential equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07834, 2022

Shi Jin and Nana Liu. Quantum algorithms for computing observables of nonlinear partial differential equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07834, 2022

work page arXiv 2022
[57]

Precise measurement of quantum observables with neural-network estimators.Physical Review Research, 2(2):022060, 2020

Giacomo Torlai, Guglielmo Mazzola, Giuseppe Carleo, and Antonio Mezzacapo. Precise measurement of quantum observables with neural-network estimators.Physical Review Research, 2(2):022060, 2020

2020
[58]

Qram: A survey and critique.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10310, 2023

Samuel Jaques and Arthur G Rattew. Qram: A survey and critique.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10310, 2023

work page arXiv 2023
[59]

Efficient quantum amplitude encoding of polynomial functions.Quantum, 8:1297, 2024

Javier Gonzalez-Conde, Thomas W Watts, Pablo Rodriguez-Grasa, and Mikel Sanz. Efficient quantum amplitude encoding of polynomial functions.Quantum, 8:1297, 2024

2024
[60]

Transformation of quantum states using uniformly controlled rotations.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0407010, 2004

Mikko Mottonen, Juha J Vartiainen, Ville Bergholm, and Martti M Salomaa. Transformation of quantum states using uniformly controlled rotations.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0407010, 2004

work page arXiv 2004
[61]

Xiaoming Sun, Guojing Tian, Shuai Yang, Pei Yuan, and Shengyu Zhang. 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):3301–3314, 2023. 34 REFERENCES Rathoreet al

2023
[62]

Synthesis of quantum superpositions by quantum computation.Physical review letters, 85(6):1334, 2000

Lov K Grover. Synthesis of quantum superpositions by quantum computation.Physical review letters, 85(6):1334, 2000

2000
[63]

Fast black-box quantum state preparation.Quantum, 6:773, 2022

Johannes Bausch. Fast black-box quantum state preparation.Quantum, 6:773, 2022

2022
[64]

Quantum machine learning: a classical perspective.Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 474(2209):20170551, 2018

Carlo Ciliberto, Mark Herbster, Alessandro Davide Ialongo, Massimiliano Pontil, Andrea Rocchetto, Simone Severini, and Leonard Wossnig. Quantum machine learning: a classical perspective.Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 474(2209):20170551, 2018

2018
[65]

Steiger and Matthias Troyer

Damian S. Steiger and Matthias Troyer. Racing in parallel: Quantum versus classical. Bulletin of the American Physical Society, 2016, 2016

2016
[66]

Abrams and Seth Lloyd

Daniel S. Abrams and Seth Lloyd. Nonlinear quantum mechanics implies polynomial-time solution forNP-complete andPproblems.Phys. Rev. Lett., 81:3992–3995, Nov 1998

1998
[67]

Encoding-independent optimization problem formulation for quantum computing.Frontiers in Quantum Science and Technology, 2:1229471, 2023

Federico Dominguez, Josua Unger, Matthias Traube, Barry Mant, Christian Ertler, and Wolfgang Lechner. Encoding-independent optimization problem formulation for quantum computing.Frontiers in Quantum Science and Technology, 2:1229471, 2023

2023
[68]

Performance comparison of typical binary-integer encodings in an ising machine.IEEE Access, 9:81032–81039, 2021

Kensuke Tamura, Tatsuhiko Shirai, Hosho Katsura, Shu Tanaka, and Nozomu Togawa. Performance comparison of typical binary-integer encodings in an ising machine.IEEE Access, 9:81032–81039, 2021

2021
[69]

Quantum annealing and condensed matter physics

Viv Kendon and Nicholas Chancellor. Quantum annealing and condensed matter physics. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 2026

2026
[70]

Domain wall encoding of discrete variables for quantum annealing and qaoa.Quantum Science and Technology, 4(4):045004, 2019

Nicholas Chancellor. Domain wall encoding of discrete variables for quantum annealing and qaoa.Quantum Science and Technology, 4(4):045004, 2019

2019
[71]

Performance of domain-wall encoding for quantum annealing.IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, 2:1–14, 2021

Jie Chen, Tobias Stollenwerk, and Nicholas Chancellor. Performance of domain-wall encoding for quantum annealing.IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, 2:1–14, 2021

2021
[72]

Jesse Berwald, Nicholas Chancellor, and Raouf Dridi. Understanding domain-wall encoding theoretically and experimentally.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 381(2241), 2023

2023
[73]

Caves, and Ivan H

Robin Blume-Kohout, Carlton M. Caves, and Ivan H. Deutsch. Climbing mount scalable: Physical resource requirements for a scalable quantum computer.Foundations of Physics, 32(11):1641–1670, Nov 2002

2002
[74]

From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to a quantum alternating operator ansatz.Algorithms, 12(2):34, 2019

Stuart Hadfield, Zhihui Wang, Bryan O’gorman, Eleanor G Rieffel, Davide Venturelli, and Rupak Biswas. From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to a quantum alternating operator ansatz.Algorithms, 12(2):34, 2019

2019
[75]

Ieee standard for floating-point arithmetic.IEEE Std, 754(2008):1–70, 2008

Dan Zuras, Mike Cowlishaw, Alex Aiken, Matthew Applegate, David Bailey, Steve Bass, Dileep Bhandarkar, Mahesh Bhat, David Bindel, Sylvie Boldo, et al. Ieee standard for floating-point arithmetic.IEEE Std, 754(2008):1–70, 2008

2008
[76]

Quantum algorithms for nonlinear equations in fluid.Quantum computing and communications, page 5, 2022

Rene Steijl. Quantum algorithms for nonlinear equations in fluid.Quantum computing and communications, page 5, 2022

2022
[77]

Quantum algorithms and circuits for scientific computing.arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.08253, 2015

Mihir K Bhaskar, Stuart Hadfield, Anargyros Papageorgiou, and Iasonas Petras. Quantum algorithms and circuits for scientific computing.arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.08253, 2015

work page arXiv 2015
[78]

Quantum circuits for floating-point arithmetic

Thomas Haener, Mathias Soeken, Martin Roetteler, and Krysta M Svore. Quantum circuits for floating-point arithmetic. InInternational Conference on Reversible Computation, pages 162–174. Springer, 2018

2018
[79]

A step-by-step hhl algorithm walkthrough to enhance understanding of critical quantum computing concepts.IEEE Access, 2023

Anika Zaman, Hector Jose Morrell, and Hiu Yung Wong. A step-by-step hhl algorithm walkthrough to enhance understanding of critical quantum computing concepts.IEEE Access, 2023

2023
[80]

Survey on the improvement and application of hhl algorithm

Xiaonan Liu, Haoshan Xie, Zhengyu Liu, and Chenyan Zhao. Survey on the improvement and application of hhl algorithm. InJournal of Physics: Conference Series, volume 2333, page 012023. IOP Publishing, 2022. 35 REFERENCES Rathoreet al

2022

Showing first 80 references.