Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 113 references

Exploring the use of quantum computing for facilitating spatially and temporally resolved models of a biological cell

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under idealized assumptions about data access, quantum algorithms could cut the time for representative whole-cell simulation problems from days to seconds.

desk verdict Useful roadmap with honest caveats, but the RDME speedup is built on a misidentified operator dimension and the headline numbers need revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27571 v1 pith:DWO5VWSH submitted 2026-07-30 quant-ph physics.bio-ph

Muralikrishnan Gopalakrishnan Meena , Dileep Kishore , Jerry M. Parks , Luke Bertels , Dilipkumar N. Asthagiri , Travis Humble , Thomas L. Beck , Mitchel J. Doktycz This is my paper
classification quant-phphysics.bio-ph MSC 68Q1281P68 PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords whole-cellsimulationquantumcomputingfluxbalanceanalysisstochasticalgorithmreaction-diffusionmasterequationlinearsystemscomplexitymultiscalemodeling
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 Perspective asks whether quantum computers could make whole-cell simulation—modeling all of a cell's functional systems at once—tractable. It walks through three modeling scales (atomistic chemistry, metabolic networks, spatial reaction-diffusion dynamics) and compares the time complexity of established classical algorithms against quantum alternatives. Its central claim is that for several representative problems—yeast flux-balance analysis, stochastic simulation of E. coli glycolysis, and spatial RDME simulations of an E. coli cell cycle—quantum algorithms could, under specified assumptions, reduce wall-clock times by many orders of magnitude. The paper is explicit that these speedups are prospective: they depend on efficient oracles, sparse and well-conditioned operators, and they omit data-encoding and readout costs, which the paper identifies as a major practical bottleneck. The value of the work is a structured, quantitative map of where quantum computing could plausibly matter for biology and where it likely does not.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the algorithmic kernels and their complexity pairings: QLSA/HHL for linear systems, quantum convex optimization for LP/QP, Grover/QAOA search for combinatorial problems, quantum amplitude estimation for sampling, and quantum walks/Markov chains for mixing. The comparison is carried by asymptotic formulas—O(N^2.3)–O(N^3) vs O(√N) for FBA, O(N) vs O(log N s²κ log(1/ε)) for SSA solves, O(1/ε²) vs O(1/ε) for convergence, and O(1/δ) vs O(1/√δ) for mixing. The logarithmic scalings depend on the oracle-access assumption: that state vectors and sparse system matrices can be loaded into a quantum computer efficiently. Plugging representative sizes into these formulas produces

What would settle it

Build the actual quantum circuit (block encoding plus state preparation) for a realistic genome-scale stoichiometric matrix or a cell-scale diffusion operator and count its qubits and gate depth. If that overhead grows roughly linearly with the number of reactions or voxels, or if the condition number grows with system size faster than the O(log N) solve time offsets, the claimed day-to-second wall-clock reductions do not occur at practical problem sizes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central technical contribution is a systematic complexity comparison across the three scales. For constraint-based metabolic models, classical FBA runs in O(N^2.3)–O(N^3), while quantum convex optimization scales as O(√N·poly(s,κ,1/ε)). For stochastic simulation, classical SSA costs O(N) per trajectory and O(1/ε²) samples for convergence, while quantum linear solvers and quantum Monte Carlo/amplitude estimation offer O(log N · s²κ log(1/ε)) solves and O(1/ε) samples. For Markov-chain mixing and rare events, the gap is O(1/δ) to O(1/√δ). Plugging in representative system sizes—10^10 reactions for yeast FBA, 10^6 voxels and 4,000 species for the E. coli RDME—yields estimates such a

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a cell's state and the matrices describing its chemistry can be loaded into a quantum computer at a cost that does not grow with system size—that is, that efficient quantum oracles exist and data-encoding and readout overhead can be neglected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the speedups survive practical data-encoding costs, the natural deployment route is a hybrid quantum–HPC framework in which a quantum processor offloads selected kernels—ground-state energetics, FBA optimization, stochastic sampling, stiff linear solves—only above a complexity threshold.
  • A credible endpoint emerges: fully atomistic, chemically accurate cellular simulation in which forces and rate parameters come from first-principles electronic structure, progressively replacing empirically fitted parameters in network and spatial models.
  • Quantum-accelerated SSA and quantum-walk-based mixing would relieve the two classical bottlenecks of statistical convergence and rare-event sampling in stochastic cellular models.
  • Whole-cell spatial stochastic models, currently intractable even on exascale supercomputers, could become feasible for single-cell-scale simulations if data-encoding overhead is controlled.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's wall-clock estimates are better read as upper bounds on the claimed speedup than as predictions: data-loading and readout costs are omitted, so the true crossover problem size is likely larger than the representative cases quoted.
  • A testable extension suggested by the comparison: construct a full end-to-end QLSA circuit for a stiffness-dominated biological operator and measure state-preparation depth; this would show whether the O(log N) solve time survives at practical N.
  • If efficient block encodings exist for structured biological operators (stoichiometric matrices, diffusion operators), the paper's roadmap converts into an engineering checklist: which kernels to offload, when, and with how many logical qubits.
  • The complexity map also implies a selection rule the paper does not state explicitly: only problems whose classical-to-quantum gap is exponential in system dimension or quadratic in error/mixing are candidates; problems with only polynomial gaps (like the non-spatial ODE case at yeast sizes) show no practical advantage.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This Perspective surveys the potential of quantum computing for three hierarchical levels of whole-cell modeling: atomistic/molecular simulation, metabolic and regulatory network modeling, and spatial whole-cell modeling. For each level it reviews classical methods, proposes candidate quantum algorithms, and presents complexity analyses in the main text and SI that compare classical wall-clock estimates (on a workstation and on Frontier) with idealized quantum estimates. Headline numbers include a yeast FBA reduction from 17 hours to ~10 seconds and an E. coli RDME reduction from ~6 days to ~0.02 seconds. The paper also discusses hybrid quantum-HPC integration and practical challenges including data encoding, conditioning, and readout.

Significance. If the complexity analyses were correct, the paper would provide a valuable roadmap and identify concrete regimes where quantum algorithms could accelerate biological modeling. The survey is broad and up-to-date, with useful tables of algorithms and hardware demonstrations, and the authors are transparent about many idealizations (oracle access, omitted data-loading costs, s=1, κ=1). However, the two headline quantitative claims rest on internal dimension errors in the SI. The qualitative perspective and the general survey of algorithms remain useful, but the specific speedup numbers need substantial revision before they can support the paper's central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [SI C.4, Eq. (S-9); Table S-2] The RDME estimate uses N = R_total × N_voxels = 2.4×10^10 and log N ≈ 11, leading to the 0.02 s headline. The RDME generator acts on probability distributions over chemical configurations, whose dimension is at least (K+1)^(M V) (with K+1 copy-number states per species per voxel). For M=4000, V=10^6, even K=1 gives log2 N ≈ 4×10^9, not 11. Thus the 'single operator application' claim does not justify O(log N) with that N. The same conflation of classical event count with QLSA dimension appears in SI B.3 (N = R × N_r) and in the SSA rows of Tables 3–4. This is an internal misapplication of QLSA complexity, not merely an omitted data-loading cost.
  2. [SI B.1 / Table S-1] The FBA 'system sizes' are inflated. The text lists the actual models as [95, 2712, 4058] reactions but then states totals O(10^5), O(10^9), O(10^10) 'reactions'; these values correspond to the product reactions×metabolites×genes, not to an LP variable dimension. For a flux-balance LP, N is the number of reaction fluxes (plus auxiliary variables), i.e., 2.7×10^3 for iML1515 and 4.1×10^3 for Yeast8. Using product dimensions therefore overstates the classical cost and the quantum advantage. The '17 hr→10 s' yeast FBA claim in Fig. 1 is not based on a representative biological problem as stated.
  3. [Section 3.2.3 / Table S-2] The headline wall-clock estimates set s=1, κ=1. The paper itself notes in §3.2.3 that 'large condition numbers (κ) expected for stiff biological PDEs will further amplify qubit and gate requirements.' Since the QLSA/quantum-walk complexities scale at least quadratically in κ, the speedup numbers in Fig. 1 and Tables S-1/S-2 are in tension with the authors' own characterization of the target systems. A sensitivity analysis (e.g., κ=10, 10^3, 10^6) is needed before these numbers can support the claimed regimes of advantage.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 1] The figure presents '6 days → 0.02 sec' and '17 hr→ 10 sec' without the caveats stated in Table S-2. Add a footnote indicating s=κ=1, oracle access, and no data-loading cost so the headline graphic is not misleading.
  2. [Section 2.3] Typo: 'Careleman linearization' should be 'Carleman linearization'.
  3. [Tables 3–4] The 'Advantage' column labels O(log N) as 'Exponential in N' in several rows. This phrasing is meaningful only if N is the actual matrix dimension, which is the issue raised in the first major comment; once the dimension error is fixed, these annotations need to be revisited.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: quantum speedup estimates derive from external algorithm complexities and stated biological inputs; the paper explicitly disclaims data-encoding costs.

full rationale

The central claim is a complexity comparison, not a fitted prediction. For each representative problem (FBA, SSA/glycolysis, deterministic PDE, RDME), the paper takes biological inputs (reaction counts, voxel counts, propensities, cell volumes) from independent sources such as BioNumbers, iML1515, Yeast8, and StochKit2, and inserts them into quantum-algorithm complexity formulas taken from the external literature (HHL/QLSA [29,30], quantum walks [46,48,70], amplitude estimation [44], quantum convex optimization [64,65]). No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then called a prediction; all quantum runtime numbers are explicitly labeled as idealized (oracle access, s=1, kappa=1, no data-loading costs). The paper's own limitations sections acknowledge that 'Encoding such datasets onto quantum devices can be extremely challenging, potentially limiting the attainable quantum advantage' (Sec. 3.2.1) and that concrete resource estimates remain an open direction (Sec. 3.2.3). These admissions reduce the strength of the claims but are not circularity. The authors' self-citations (e.g., Refs. [36,37,83,85,89,90,109]) are used as pointers to prior hardware demonstrations and algorithmic frameworks, not as the load-bearing justification for the three headline speedups, which rest on externally established complexity results. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior work. The most significant quantitative concern is in SI C.4, where N is taken as R_total x N_voxels and then used as the dimension in 'log N ≈ 11' for QLSA; the RDME generator's state-space dimension is the number of chemical configurations, so this estimate may be internally misapplied. However, that is a correctness/validity risk, not a circular reduction of the prediction to its own inputs by construction, and therefore does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the 'QPU accelerator' is an existing architectural concept. The central assumptions are oracle access, ideal sparsity/condition number, and the completeness of biological data, all acknowledged by the authors. The free parameters are inputs to the scaling calculations, not fitted to data.

free parameters (6)
  • Quantum hardware throughput (10.5 kop/s at 16-bit fp) = 10.5 kop/s
    Taken from Hoefler et al. [91] and used for all quantum wall-clock estimates (SI A-C); the comparison of quantum operations to FLOPS is an assumption, not a measured biological benchmark.
  • Ideal sparsity and condition number = s=1, κ=1
    Assumed for QLSA time estimates in SI B.2, B.3, C.2-C.4; real biological Jacobians are not identity-sparse or perfectly conditioned, and the paper itself notes conditioning as a practical challenge (§3.2.1).
  • E. coli glycolysis propensity = a0 = 1e9 events/s
    Used to compute SSA and RDME trajectory costs (SI B.3, C.4); an order-of-magnitude biological input.
  • Single-core SSA throughput = 1e7 events/s
    Used to translate operation counts into wall-clock for classical SSA (SI B.3, C.4); hardware-dependent and not benchmarked in this paper.
  • Voxel size and cell volumes = 10 nm voxels; E. coli 1 µm^3; yeast 42 µm^3
    Spatial discretization choices determine N in the PDE/RDME scaling estimates (SI C.3-C.4); choosing 100 nm voxels would shift the speedup crossover.
  • Quantum sample count for 5% error = 20
    From O(1/ε) amplitude estimation with ε=0.05; ignores constant prefactors that could be large.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Efficient oracles/block encodings exist for biological system matrices at the costs quoted
    QLSA and Hamiltonian-simulation speedups assume oracle access; the paper acknowledges this in Table 3 and §3.2.1, but the wall-clock numbers (e.g., 0.02 s RDME) include no oracle-construction cost.
  • domain assumption Nonlinear biological PDEs can be linearized (Carleman/Koopman) with manageable truncation error
    §2.3 and Table 1 cite Carleman linearization [33] and note that it requires strong dissipation (R≪1); stiff reaction-diffusion systems in cells may violate this condition.
  • domain assumption Quantum measurement can extract needed observables with O(1/ε) samples and no destructive state-preparation overhead
    All QLSA estimates assume expectation-value readout; the paper notes readout constraints in §3.2.1.
  • standard math Classical solver complexity baselines O(N^1.5)–O(N^3) apply to whole-cell systems
    Uses standard numerical linear algebra results [28,72]; the actual constant and preconditioner performance determines where the crossover occurs.
  • domain assumption The biological input data (kinetic parameters, initial conditions, molecular copy numbers) are sufficiently complete
    The abstract states that many governing physical and chemical properties remain incompletely characterized; the roadmap assumes these can be supplied or inferred.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the use of quantum computing for facilitating spatially and temporally resolved models of a biological cell." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DWO5VWSH

@misc{pith2026260727571,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the use of quantum computing for facilitating spatially and temporally resolved models of a biological cell},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DWO5VWSH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27571}
}
abstract

Whole-cell simulation, modeling all of a cell's functional systems over its life cycle, is an outstanding challenge in computational biology. Even the simplest living cell contains thousands of interacting proteins and metabolites (on the order of trillions of atoms) whose full functional dynamics spans roughly five orders of magnitude in space (nm to $\mu$m) and nearly nineteen in time (fs to hours). Further, many of the governing physical and chemical properties remain incompletely characterized. Simulating such complex systems at fully atomistic resolution over a full cell cycle is computationally intractable on classical architectures, raising a central question: Can quantum computing offer a viable path to whole-cell simulations that integrate molecular- and systems-level complexity? This Perspective examines the potential of quantum computing across three hierarchical scales: atomistic-molecular modeling, metabolic and regulatory networks, and whole-cell spatial modeling. We present a complexity analysis comparing classical and quantum algorithms for representative biological problems, identifying regimes of substantial theoretical speedup under specified algorithmic assumptions. We highlight algorithmic developments designed to leverage both near-term exploratory and fault-tolerant quantum architectures, and discuss practical bottlenecks: data encoding overhead, system conditioning, measurement constraints, and hybrid quantum-HPC integration. Together, these results outline a roadmap for quantum-accelerated whole-cell modeling and the biological insights such multiscale frameworks may eventually enable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27571 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Classical and quantum computational methods across scales of whole-cell modeling. A bacterial cell, shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Depiction of a hybrid HPC-Quantum-AI integration framework to enhance various hierarchical components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 10 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Quantum computing at the frontiers of biological sciences,

    P. S. Emani, J. Warrell, A. Anticevic, S. Bekiranov, M. Gandal, M. J. McConnell, G. Sapiro, A. Aspuru-Guzik, J. T. Baker, M. Bastiani, et al., “Quantum computing at the frontiers of biological sciences,” Nature Methods, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 701–709, 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    Biology begins to tangle with quantum computing,

    V . Marx, “Biology begins to tangle with quantum computing,”Nature Methods, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 715–719, 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    Quantum computing algorithms: getting closer to critical problems in computational biology,

    L. Marchetti, R. Nifosì, P. L. Martelli, E. Da Pozzo, V . Cappello, F. Banterle, M. L. Trincavelli, C. Martini, and M. D’Elia, “Quantum computing algorithms: getting closer to critical problems in computational biology,” Briefings in Bioinformatics, vol. 23, no. 6, p. bbac437, 2022

    2022

  4. [4]

    Perspective on the current state-of-the-art of quantum computing for drug discovery applications,

    N. S. Blunt, J. Camps, O. Crawford, R. Izsák, S. Leontica, A. Mirani, A. E. Moylett, S. A. Scivier, C. Sunder- hauf, P. Schopf, et al., “Perspective on the current state-of-the-art of quantum computing for drug discovery applications,” Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 7001–7023, 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    Biology and medicine in the landscape of quantum advantages,

    B. A. Cordier, N. P. Sawaya, G. G. Guerreschi, and S. K. McWeeney, “Biology and medicine in the landscape of quantum advantages,” Journal of the Royal Society Interface, vol. 19, no. 196, p. 20220541, 2022

    2022

  6. [6]

    Quantum computing for biomedical computational and data sciences: A joint doe-nih roundtable,

    S. McWeeney, T. Perciano, C. Susut, L. Chatterjee, M. Fornari, L. Biven, and C. Siwy, “Quantum computing for biomedical computational and data sciences: A joint doe-nih roundtable,” tech. rep., USDOE Office of Science (SC), Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR . . . , 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Quantum computing in the next-generation computa- tional biology landscape: from protein folding to molecular dynamics,

    S. Pal, M. Bhattacharya, S.-S. Lee, and C. Chakraborty, “Quantum computing in the next-generation computa- tional biology landscape: from protein folding to molecular dynamics,” Molecular biotechnology, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 163–178, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Complexity of life sciences in quantum and ai era,

    A. Pyrkov, A. Aliper, D. Bezrukov, D. Podolskiy, F. Ren, and A. Zhavoronkov, “Complexity of life sciences in quantum and ai era,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science, vol. 14, no. 1, p. e1701, 2024

    2024

Show all 113 references
  1. [9]

    A community approach to whole-cell modeling,

    J. Singla and K. L. White, “A community approach to whole-cell modeling,” Current Opinion in Systems Biology, vol. 26, pp. 33–38, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Statistical and computational challenges for whole cell modelling,

    M. P. Stumpf, “Statistical and computational challenges for whole cell modelling,”Current Opinion in Systems Biology, vol. 26, pp. 58–63, 2021. 13 Quantum computing for spatially and temporally resolved models of a biological cell

    2021

  3. [11]

    Estimating computational limits on theoretical descriptions of biological cells,

    R. R. Netz and W. A. Eaton, “Estimating computational limits on theoretical descriptions of biological cells,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118, no. 6, p. e2022753118, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Multi-scale models of whole cells: progress and challenges,

    K. Georgouli, J.-S. Yeom, R. C. Blake, and A. Navid, “Multi-scale models of whole cells: progress and challenges,” Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, vol. 11, p. 1260507, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Molecular dynamics simulation of an entire cell,

    J. A. Stevens, F. Grünewald, P. van Tilburg, M. König, B. R. Gilbert, T. A. Brier, Z. R. Thornburg, Z. Luthey- Schulten, and S. J. Marrink, “Molecular dynamics simulation of an entire cell,” Frontiers in Chemistry, vol. 11, p. 1106495, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    The variational quantum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices,

    J. Tilly, H. Chen, S. Cao, D. Picozzi, K. Setia, Y . Li, E. Grant, L. Wossnig, I. Rungger, G. H. Booth,et al., “The variational quantum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices,” Physics Reports, vol. 986, pp. 1–128, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Resource-efficient quantum algorithm for protein folding,

    A. Robert, P. K. Barkoutsos, S. Woerner, and I. Tavernelli, “Resource-efficient quantum algorithm for protein folding,” npj Quantum Information, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 38, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Hardware-Efficient Variational Quantum Eigensolver for Small Molecules and Quantum Magnets,

    A. Kandala et al., “Hardware-Efficient Variational Quantum Eigensolver for Small Molecules and Quantum Magnets,” Nature, vol. 549, no. 7671, pp. 242–246, 2017

    2017

  9. [17]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, “A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Molecular quantum computations on a protein,

    A. Shajan, D. Kaliakin, F. Liang, T. Pellegrini, H. Doga, S. Bhowmik, S. Das, A. Mezzacapo, M. Motta, and K. M. Merz Jr, “Molecular quantum computations on a protein,” Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 2026

    2026

  11. [19]

    Optimal hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing,

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, “Optimal hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing,” Physical review letters, vol. 118, no. 1, p. 010501, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization,

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, “Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization,” Quantum, vol. 3, p. 163, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Boyd and L

    S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex optimization. Cambridge university press, 2004

    2004

  14. [22]

    Numerical optimization,

    J. Nocedal, “Numerical optimization,” Springer Ser. Oper. Res. Financ. Eng./Springer, 2006

    2006

  15. [23]

    Quantum gene regulatory networks,

    C. Roman-Vicharra and J. J. Cai, “Quantum gene regulatory networks,”npj Quantum Information, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 67, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    What is flux balance analysis?,

    J. D. Orth, I. Thiele, and B. Ø. Palsson, “What is flux balance analysis?,” Nature biotechnology, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 245–248, 2010

    2010

  17. [25]

    Palsson, Systems biology

    B. Palsson, Systems biology. Cambridge university press, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,

    L. K. Grover, “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,” inProceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pp. 212–219, 1996

    1996

  19. [27]

    Identifying protein co-regulatory network logic by solving b-sat problems through gate-based quantum computing,

    A. E. Brisebois, J. Broderick, Z. Khatooni, H. L. Wilson, S. Rayan, and G. Broderick, “Identifying protein co-regulatory network logic by solving b-sat problems through gate-based quantum computing,” in 2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (Q...

    2025

  20. [28]

    L. N. Trefethen and D. Bau, Numerical linear algebra. SIAM, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations,

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, “Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations,”Physical review letters, vol. 103, no. 15, p. 150502, 2009

    2009

  22. [30]

    Quantum linear system solvers: A survey of algorithms and applications,

    M. E. Morales, L. Pira, P. Schleich, K. Koor, P. Costa, D. An, A. Aspuru-Guzik, L. Lin, P. Rebentrost, and D. W. Berry, “Quantum linear system solvers: A survey of algorithms and applications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02522, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Solving linear systems on quantum hardware with hybrid hhl++,

    R. Yalovetzky, P. Minssen, D. Herman, and M. Pistoia, “Solving linear systems on quantum hardware with hybrid hhl++,” Scientific Reports, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 20610, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    An Early Investigation of the HHL Quantum Linear Solver for Scientific Applications,

    M. Zheng, C. Liu, S. Stein, X. Li, J. Mülmenstädt, Y . Chen, and A. Li, “An Early Investigation of the HHL Quantum Linear Solver for Scientific Applications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19067, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Efficient quantum algorithm for dissipative nonlinear differential equations,

    J.-P. Liu, H. Ø. Kolden, H. K. Krovi, N. F. Loureiro, K. Trivisa, and A. M. Childs, “Efficient quantum algorithm for dissipative nonlinear differential equations,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118, no. 35, p. e2026805118, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Quantum algorithm for subcellular multiscale reaction-diffusion systems,

    M. Lockwood, N. Wiebe, C. Johnson, J. Mülmenstädt, J. Chun, G. Schenter, M. S. Cheung, and X. Li, “Quantum algorithm for subcellular multiscale reaction-diffusion systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.20668, 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Finding flows of a navier–stokes fluid through quantum computing,

    F. Gaitan, “Finding flows of a navier–stokes fluid through quantum computing,”npj Quantum Information, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 61, 2020. 14 Quantum computing for spatially and temporally resolved models of a biological cell

    2020

  28. [36]

    Towards a quantum algorithm for the incompressible nonlinear navier-stokes equations,

    M. Gopalakrishnan Meena, Y . Zhang, W. Jiang, Y . Lin, S. Günther, and X. Gao, “Towards a quantum algorithm for the incompressible nonlinear navier-stokes equations,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 1, pp. 662–668, IEEE, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Solving the Hele–Shaw flow using the Harrow–Hassidim–Lloyd algorithm on superconducting devices: A study of efficiency and challenges,

    M. Gopalakrishnan Meena, K. C. Gottiparthi, J. G. Lietz, A. Georgiadou, and E. A. 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, vol. 36, no. 10, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Incompressible navier–stokes solve on noisy quantum hardware via a hybrid quantum–classical scheme,

    Z. Song, R. Deaton, B. Gard, and S. H. Bryngelson, “Incompressible navier–stokes solve on noisy quantum hardware via a hybrid quantum–classical scheme,” Computers & Fluids, vol. 288, p. 106507, 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions,

    D. T. Gillespie, “Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions,” The journal of physical chemistry, vol. 81, no. 25, pp. 2340–2361, 1977

    1977

  32. [40]

    Stochastic simulation of chemical kinetics,

    D. T. Gillespie, “Stochastic simulation of chemical kinetics,” Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem., vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 35–55, 2007

    2007

  33. [41]

    Direct solution of the chemical master equation using quantized tensor trains,

    V . Kazeev, M. Khammash, M. Nip, and C. Schwab, “Direct solution of the chemical master equation using quantized tensor trains,” PLoS computational biology, vol. 10, no. 3, p. e1003359, 2014

    2014

  34. [42]

    An in-silico human cell model reveals the influence of spatial organization on rna splicing,

    Z. Ghaemi, J. R. Peterson, M. Gruebele, and Z. Luthey-Schulten, “An in-silico human cell model reveals the influence of spatial organization on rna splicing,” PLoS computational biology, vol. 16, no. 3, p. e1007717, 2020

    2020

  35. [43]

    Quantifying the roles of space and stochasticity in computer simulations for cell biology and cellular biochemistry,

    M. E. Johnson, A. Chen, J. R. Faeder, P. Henning, I. I. Moraru, M. Meier-Schellersheim, R. F. Murphy, T. Prüstel, J. A. Theriot, and A. M. Uhrmacher, “Quantifying the roles of space and stochasticity in computer simulations for cell biology and cellular biochemistry,”Molecular...

    2021

  36. [44]

    Quantum-accelerated multilevel monte carlo methods for stochastic differential equations in mathematical finance,

    D. An, N. Linden, J.-P. Liu, A. Montanaro, C. Shao, and J. Wang, “Quantum-accelerated multilevel monte carlo methods for stochastic differential equations in mathematical finance,” Quantum, vol. 5, p. 481, 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    Quantum algorithms for stochastic differential equations: A schrödingerisation approach,

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and W. Wei, “Quantum algorithms for stochastic differential equations: A schrödingerisation approach,” Journal of Scientific Computing, vol. 104, no. 2, pp. 1–32, 2025

    2025

  38. [46]

    Quantum speed-up of markov chain based algorithms,

    M. Szegedy, “Quantum speed-up of markov chain based algorithms,” in 45th Annual IEEE symposium on foundations of computer science, pp. 32–41, IEEE, 2004

    2004

  39. [47]

    Quantum walks: a comprehensive review,

    S. E. Venegas-Andraca, “Quantum walks: a comprehensive review,”Quantum Information Processing, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 1015–1106, 2012

    2012

  40. [48]

    Quantum-enhanced markov chain monte carlo,

    D. Layden, G. Mazzola, R. V . Mishmash, M. Motta, P. Wocjan, J.-S. Kim, and S. Sheldon, “Quantum-enhanced markov chain monte carlo,” Nature, vol. 619, no. 7969, pp. 282–287, 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

    Bringing the genetically minimal cell to life on a computer in 4d,

    Z. R. Thornburg, A. Maytin, J. Kwon, T. A. Brier, B. R. Gilbert, E. Fu, Y .-L. Gao, J. Quenneville, T. Wu, H. Li, T. Long, W. Pezeshkian, L. Sun, J. I. Glass, A. P. Mehta, T. Ha, and Z. Luthey-Schulten, “Bringing the genetically minimal cell to life on a computer in 4d,” Cell,...

    2026

  42. [50]

    Qm/mm methods for biomolecular systems,

    H. M. Senn and W. Thiel, “Qm/mm methods for biomolecular systems,” Angewandte Chemie International Edition, vol. 48, no. 7, pp. 1198–1229, 2009

    2009

  43. [51]

    The protein data bank,

    H. M. Berman, T. Battistuz, T. N. Bhat, W. F. Bluhm, P. E. Bourne, K. Burkhardt, Z. Feng, G. L. Gilliland, L. Iype, S. Jain, et al., “The protein data bank,” Biological Crystallography, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 899–907, 2002

    2002

  44. [52]

    Announcing the worldwide protein data bank,

    H. Berman, K. Henrick, and H. Nakamura, “Announcing the worldwide protein data bank,”Nature structural & molecular biology, vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 980–980, 2003

    2003

  45. [53]

    Highly accurate protein structure prediction with alphafold,

    J. Jumper, R. Evans, A. Pritzel, T. Green, M. Figurnov, O. Ronneberger, K. Tunyasuvunakool, R. Bates, A. Žídek, A. Potapenko, et al., “Highly accurate protein structure prediction with alphafold,” nature, vol. 596, no. 7873, pp. 583–589, 2021

    2021

  46. [54]

    Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with alphafold 3,

    J. Abramson, J. Adler, J. Dunger, R. Evans, T. Green, A. Pritzel, O. Ronneberger, L. Willmore, A. J. Ballard, J. Bambrick, et al., “Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with alphafold 3,”Nature, vol. 630, no. 8016, pp. 493–500, 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    Elucidating reaction mechanisms on quantum computers,

    M. Reiher, N. Wiebe, K. M. Svore, D. Wecker, and M. Troyer, “Elucidating reaction mechanisms on quantum computers,” Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, vol. 114, no. 29, pp. 7555–7560, 2017

    2017

  48. [56]

    Macromolecular crowding: obvious but underappreciated,

    R. J. Ellis, “Macromolecular crowding: obvious but underappreciated,” Trends in biochemical sciences, vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 597–604, 2001

    2001

  49. [57]

    Quantum measurements and the abelian stabilizer problem,

    A. Y . Kitaev, “Quantum measurements and the abelian stabilizer problem,”arXiv preprint quant-ph/9511026, 1995. 15 Quantum computing for spatially and temporally resolved models of a biological cell

    1995 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Crossing the 12,000-atom barrier with heterogeneous quantum-classical supercomputing: quantum chemistry of protein-ligand complexes,

    K. M. Merz Jr, A. Shajan, D. Kaliakin, F. Liang, Y . Otsuka, T. Shirakawa, L. Broers, H. Xu, M. Tsuji, M. Sato, et al., “Crossing the 12,000-atom barrier with heterogeneous quantum-classical supercomputing: quantum chemistry of protein-ligand complexes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2...

    2026 arXiv

  51. [59]

    A perspective on quantum computing applications in quantum chemistry using 25–100 logical qubits,

    Y . Alexeev, V . S. Batista, N. Bauman, L. Bertels, D. Claudino, R. Dutta, L. Gagliardi, S. Godwin, N. Govind, M. Head-Gordon, et al., “A perspective on quantum computing applications in quantum chemistry using 25–100 logical qubits,” Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation...

    2025

  52. [60]

    A general method for numerically simulating the stochastic time evolution of coupled chemical reactions,

    D. T. Gillespie, “A general method for numerically simulating the stochastic time evolution of coupled chemical reactions,” Journal of computational physics, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 403–434, 1976

    1976

  53. [61]

    Biochemical network stochastic simulator (bionets): software for stochastic modeling of biochemical networks,

    D. Adalsteinsson, D. McMillen, and T. C. Elston, “Biochemical network stochastic simulator (bionets): software for stochastic modeling of biochemical networks,” BMC bioinformatics, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 24, 2004

    2004

  54. [62]

    A stochastic model for the evolution of metabolic networks with neighbor dependence,

    A. Mithani, G. M. Preston, and J. Hein, “A stochastic model for the evolution of metabolic networks with neighbor dependence,” Bioinformatics, vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 1528–1535, 2009

    2009

  55. [63]

    Stochastic simulation of cellular metabolism,

    E. J. Clement, T. T. Schulze, G. A. Soliman, B. J. Wysocki, P. H. Davis, and T. A. Wysocki, “Stochastic simulation of cellular metabolism,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 79734–79744, 2020

    2020

  56. [64]

    Convex optimization using quantum oracles,

    J. van Apeldoorn, A. Gilyén, S. Gribling, and R. de Wolf, “Convex optimization using quantum oracles,” Quantum, vol. 4, p. 220, 2020

    2020

  57. [65]

    Fast quantum subroutines for the simplex method,

    G. Nannicini, “Fast quantum subroutines for the simplex method,” Operations Research, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 763– 780, 2024

    2024

  58. [66]

    Quantum speed-ups for solving semidefinite programs,

    F. G. Brandao and K. M. Svore, “Quantum speed-ups for solving semidefinite programs,” in 2017 IEEE 58th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 415–426, IEEE, 2017

    2017

  59. [67]

    Simulation of chemical reactions on a quantum computer,

    S. S. Kale and S. Kais, “Simulation of chemical reactions on a quantum computer,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, vol. 15, no. 21, pp. 5633–5642, 2024

    2024

  60. [68]

    mrna secondary structure prediction using utility-scale quantum computers,

    D. Alevras, M. Metkar, T. Yamamoto, V . Kumar, T. Friedhoff, J.-E. Park, M. Takeori, M. LaDue, W. Davis, and A. Galda, “mrna secondary structure prediction using utility-scale quantum computers,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE),...

    2024

  61. [69]

    A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants,

    K. Blekos, D. Brand, A. Ceschini, C.-H. Chou, R.-H. Li, K. Pandya, and A. Summer, “A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants,” Physics Reports, vol. 1068, pp. 1–66, 2024

    2024

  62. [70]

    Quantum walk based search algorithms,

    M. Santha, “Quantum walk based search algorithms,” in International Conference on Theory and Applications of Models of Computation, pp. 31–46, Springer, 2008

    2008

  63. [71]

    Modeling stochastic chemical kinetics on quantum computers,

    T. Kabengele, Y . M. Lokare, J. Marston, and B. M. Rubenstein, “Modeling stochastic chemical kinetics on quantum computers,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08770, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    On the asymptotic complexity of matrix multiplication,

    D. Coppersmith and S. Winograd, “On the asymptotic complexity of matrix multiplication,”SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 472–492, 1982

    1982

  65. [73]

    High-performance whole-cell simulation exploiting modular cell biology principles,

    B. Das and P. Mitra, “High-performance whole-cell simulation exploiting modular cell biology principles,” Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 1481–1492, 2021

    2021

  66. [74]

    Fundamental behaviors emerge from simulations of a living minimal cell,

    Z. R. Thornburg, D. M. Bianchi, T. A. Brier, B. R. Gilbert, E. E. Earnest, M. C. Melo, N. Safronova, J. P. Sáenz, A. T. Cook, K. S. Wise, et al., “Fundamental behaviors emerge from simulations of a living minimal cell,”Cell, vol. 185, no. 2, pp. 345–360, 2022

    2022

  67. [75]

    Quantum algorithms for multiscale partial differential equations,

    J. Hu, S. Jin, and L. Zhang, “Quantum algorithms for multiscale partial differential equations,” Multiscale Modeling & Simulation, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1030–1067, 2024

    2024

  68. [76]

    A quantum algorithm to solve nonlinear differential equations,

    S. K. Leyton and T. J. Osborne, “A quantum algorithm to solve nonlinear differential equations,”arXiv preprint arXiv:0812.4423, 2008

    2008 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Quantum algorithm for nonlinear differential equations,

    S. Lloyd, G. De Palma, C. Gokler, B. Kiani, Z.-W. Liu, M. Marvian, F. Tennie, and T. Palmer, “Quantum algorithm for nonlinear differential equations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.06571, 2020

    2011 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Koopman–von neumann approach to quantum simulation of nonlinear classical dynamics,

    I. Joseph, “Koopman–von neumann approach to quantum simulation of nonlinear classical dynamics,” Physical Review Research, vol. 2, no. 4, p. 043102, 2020

    2020

  71. [79]

    Quantum algorithms for nonlinear partial differential equations,

    S. Jin and N. Liu, “Quantum algorithms for nonlinear partial differential equations,” Bulletin des Sciences Mathématiques, vol. 194, p. 103457, 2024

    2024

  72. [80]

    Quantum simulation of a noisy classical nonlinear dynamics,

    S. Bravyi, R. Manson-Sawko, M. Zayats, and S. Zhuk, “Quantum simulation of a noisy classical nonlinear dynamics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06198, 2025. 16 Quantum computing for spatially and temporally resolved models of a biological cell

    2025

  73. [81]

    Multigrid renormalization,

    M. Lubasch, P. Moinier, and D. Jaksch, “Multigrid renormalization,”Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 372, pp. 587–602, 2018

    2018

  74. [82]

    Variational quantum algorithms for nonlinear problems,

    M. Lubasch, J. Joo, P. Moinier, M. Kiffner, and D. Jaksch, “Variational quantum algorithms for nonlinear problems,” Physical Review A, vol. 101, no. 1, p. 010301, 2020

    2020

  75. [83]

    A tensor network-based quantum algorithm for the nonlinear 1d burgers’ equation,

    M. Gopalakrishnan Meena, V . Jones, Y . Zhang, and X. Gao, “A tensor network-based quantum algorithm for the nonlinear 1d burgers’ equation,” in AIAA SCITECH 2026 Forum, p. 1932, 2026

    2026

  76. [84]

    Enabling large-scale and high-precision fluid simulations on near-term quantum computers,

    Z.-Y . Chen, T.-Y . Ma, C.-C. Ye, L. Xu, W. Bai, L. Zhou, M.-Y . Tan, X.-N. Zhuang, X.-F. Xu, Y .-J. Wang,et al., “Enabling large-scale and high-precision fluid simulations on near-term quantum computers,”Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 432, p. 117428, 2024

    2024

  77. [85]

    Practical scalability of lugo: Benchmarking the hhl algorithm using an enhanced qpe algorithm,

    C. Lu, M. G. Meena, A. Georgiadou, K. C. Gottiparthi, M. Sandoval, E. A. C. Pérez, P. Lin, I.-S. Suh, S. Kim, and A. Baroni, “Practical scalability of lugo: Benchmarking the hhl algorithm using an enhanced qpe algorithm,” in 2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Comput...

    2025

  78. [86]

    Simulating fluid vortex interactions on a superconducting quantum processor,

    Z. Wang, J. Zhong, K. Wang, Z. Zhu, Z. Bao, C. Zhu, W. Zhao, Y . Zhao, Y . Yang, C. Song,et al., “Simulating fluid vortex interactions on a superconducting quantum processor,” Nature Communications, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 2602, 2026

    2026

  79. [87]

    Systematizing the generation of missing metabolic knowledge,

    J. D. Orth and B. Ø. Palsson, “Systematizing the generation of missing metabolic knowledge,”Biotechnology and bioengineering, vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 403–412, 2010

    2010

  80. [88]

    Discovering missing reactions of metabolic networks by using gene co- expression data,

    Z. Hosseini and S.-A. Marashi, “Discovering missing reactions of metabolic networks by using gene co- expression data,” Scientific reports, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 41774, 2017

    2017

  81. [89]

    Integrating quantum computing resources into scientific hpc ecosystems,

    T. Beck, A. Baroni, R. Bennink, G. Buchs, E. A. C. Pérez, M. Eisenbach, R. F. da Silva, M. G. Meena, K. Gottiparthi, P. Groszkowski, et al., “Integrating quantum computing resources into scientific hpc ecosystems,” Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 161, pp. 11–25, 2024

    2024

  82. [90]

    Bridging paradigms: Designing for hpc-quantum convergence,

    A. Shehata, P. Groszkowski, T. Naughton, M. G. Meena, E. Wong, D. Claudino, R. F. Da Silva, and T. Beck, “Bridging paradigms: Designing for hpc-quantum convergence,”Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 174, p. 107980, 2026

    2026

  83. [91]

    Disentangling hype from practicality: On realistically achieving quantum advantage,

    T. Hoefler, T. Häner, and M. Troyer, “Disentangling hype from practicality: On realistically achieving quantum advantage,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 82–87, 2023

    2023

  84. [92]

    Distributed variational quantum algorithm with many-qubit for optimization challenges,

    S. Kim and I.-S. Suh, “Distributed variational quantum algorithm with many-qubit for optimization challenges,” 2025

    2025

  85. [93]

    Variational quantum algorithms,

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, et al., “Variational quantum algorithms,”Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 625–644, 2021

    2021

  86. [94]

    Frontier: exploring exascale,

    S. Atchley, C. Zimmer, J. Lange, D. Bernholdt, V . Melesse Vergara, T. Beck, M. Brim, R. Budiardja, S. Chan- drasekaran, M. Eisenbach, et al., “Frontier: exploring exascale,” in Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and...

    2023

  87. [95]

    Quality, speed, and scale: three key attributes to measure the performance of near-term quantum computers,

    A. Wack, H. Paik, A. Javadi-Abhari, P. Jurcevic, I. Faro, J. M. Gambetta, and B. R. Johnson, “Quality, speed, and scale: three key attributes to measure the performance of near-term quantum computers,” 2021

    2021

  88. [96]

    Technology and performance benchmarks of iqm’s 20-qubit quantum computer,

    L. Abdurakhimov, J. Adam, H. Ahmad, O. Ahonen, M. Algaba, G. Alonso, V . Bergholm, R. Beriwal, M. Beuerle, C. Bockstiegel, et al., “Technology and performance benchmarks of iqm’s 20-qubit quantum computer,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12433, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Reconstruction and use of microbial metabolic networks: the core escherichia coli metabolic model as an educational guide,

    J. D. Orth, R. M. Fleming, and B. Ø. Palsson, “Reconstruction and use of microbial metabolic networks: the core escherichia coli metabolic model as an educational guide,” EcoSal plus, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 10–1128, 2010

    2010

  90. [98]

    i ml1515, a knowledgebase that computes escherichia coli traits,

    J. M. Monk, C. J. Lloyd, E. Brunk, N. Mih, A. Sastry, Z. King, R. Takeuchi, W. Nomura, Z. Zhang, H. Mori, et al., “i ml1515, a knowledgebase that computes escherichia coli traits,” Nature biotechnology, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 904–908, 2017

    2017

  91. [99]

    A consensus s. cerevisiae metabolic model yeast8 and its ecosystem for comprehensively probing cellular metabolism,

    H. Lu, F. Li, B. J. Sánchez, Z. Zhu, G. Li, I. Domenzain, S. Marcišauskas, P. M. Anton, D. Lappa, C. Lieven, et al., “A consensus s. cerevisiae metabolic model yeast8 and its ecosystem for comprehensively probing cellular metabolism,” Nature communications, vol. 10, no. 1, p. ...

    2019

  92. [100]

    Stochkit2: software for discrete stochastic simulation of biochemical systems with events,

    K. R. Sanft, S. Wu, M. Roh, J. Fu, R. K. Lim, and L. R. Petzold, “Stochkit2: software for discrete stochastic simulation of biochemical systems with events,” Bioinformatics, vol. 27, no. 17, pp. 2457–2458, 2011

    2011

  93. [101]

    Preconditioned quantum linear system algorithm,

    B. D. Clader, B. C. Jacobs, and C. R. Sprouse, “Preconditioned quantum linear system algorithm,” Physical review letters, vol. 110, no. 25, p. 250504, 2013. 17 Quantum computing for spatially and temporally resolved models of a biological cell

    2013

  94. [102]

    Quantum computing and preconditioners for hydrological linear systems,

    J. Golden, D. O’Malley, and H. Viswanathan, “Quantum computing and preconditioners for hydrological linear systems,” Scientific Reports, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 22285, 2022

    2022

  95. [103]

    Enhancing the Harrow-Hassidim-Lloyd (HHL) algorithm in systems with large condition numbers,

    P. B. Tsemo, A. Jayashankar, K. Sugisaki, N. Baskaran, S. Chakraborty, and V . Prasannaa, “Enhancing the Harrow-Hassidim-Lloyd (HHL) algorithm in systems with large condition numbers,” Physical Review Research, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 023270, 2025

    2025

  96. [104]

    Quantum algorithms for systems of linear equations inspired by adiabatic quantum computing,

    Y . Suba¸ sı, R. D. Somma, and D. Orsucci, “Quantum algorithms for systems of linear equations inspired by adiabatic quantum computing,” Physical review letters, vol. 122, no. 6, p. 060504, 2019

    2019

  97. [105]

    Quantum linear system solver based on time-optimal adiabatic quantum computing and quantum approximate optimization algorithm,

    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, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1– 28, 2022

    2022

  98. [106]

    Optimal polynomial based quantum eigenstate filtering with application to solving quantum linear systems,

    L. Lin and Y . Tong, “Optimal polynomial based quantum eigenstate filtering with application to solving quantum linear systems,” Quantum, vol. 4, p. 361, 2020

    2020

  99. [107]

    Quantum algorithm for systems of linear equations with ex- ponentially improved dependence on precision,

    A. M. Childs, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, “Quantum algorithm for systems of linear equations with ex- ponentially improved dependence on precision,” SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 1920–1950, 2017

    1920

  100. [108]

    The power of block-encoded matrix powers: improved regression techniques via faster hamiltonian simulation,

    S. Chakraborty, A. Gilyén, and S. Jeffery, “The power of block-encoded matrix powers: improved regression techniques via faster hamiltonian simulation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.01973, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Lugo: an enhanced quantum phase estimation implementation,

    C. Lu, M. G. Meena, and K. C. Gottiparthi, “Lugo: an enhanced quantum phase estimation implementation,” Future Generation Computer Systems, p. 108270, 2025

    2025

  102. [110]

    Optimal scaling quantum linear-systems solver via discrete adiabatic theorem,

    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, vol. 3, no. 4, p. 040303, 2022

    2022

  103. [111]

    Efficient quantum linear solver algorithm with detailed running costs,

    D. Jennings, M. Lostaglio, S. Pallister, A. T. Sornborger, and Y . Suba¸ sı, “Efficient quantum linear solver algorithm with detailed running costs,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11352, 2023

    2023

  104. [112]

    Milo and R

    R. Milo and R. Phillips, Cell biology by the numbers. Garland Science, 2015

    2015

  105. [113]

    Bionumbers—the database of key numbers in molecular and cell biology,

    R. Milo, P. Jorgensen, U. Moran, G. Weber, and M. Springer, “Bionumbers—the database of key numbers in molecular and cell biology,”Nucleic acids research, vol. 38, no. suppl_1, pp. D750–D753, 2010. 18 Quantum computing for spatially and temporally resolved models of a biologic...

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.