Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 1 cited by

A linear combination of non-unitaries lets quantum solvers load Carleman-linearized systems with term count independent of grid size.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-07-01 08:23 UTC pith:JPXPUA5S

load-bearing objection LCNU plus embedding keeps term count independent of grid size for Carleman systems, with concrete resource estimates that still carry log n factors. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2605.00302 v4 pith:JPXPUA5S submitted 2026-05-01 quant-ph

Quantum Data Loading for Carleman Linearized Systems: Application to the Lattice-Boltzmann Equation

Reuben Demirdjian , Thomas Hogancamp , Abeynaya Gnanasekaran , Amit Surana , Daniel Gunlycke This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantum data loadingCarleman linearizationlattice Boltzmann equationlinear combination of non-unitariesblock encodingvariational quantum linear solvernonlinear PDEs
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper develops an LCNU data-loading method that embeds a linear combination of non-unitaries into a linear combination of unitaries while preserving the exact term count. For any Carleman-linearized autonomous system with polynomial nonlinearity, and specifically for the three-dimensional lattice Boltzmann equation, the resulting number of terms scales only with the truncation order α and the number of discrete velocities Q. This independence from the number of spatial grid points n and time steps allows subsequent block-encoding and variational solvers to achieve T-gate costs that grow only logarithmically with n rather than linearly.

Core claim

We construct a generalized LCNU framework for any Carleman linearized autonomous dynamical system having a polynomial nonlinearity. For the 3D Carleman linearized lattice Boltzmann equation the number of terms in the decomposition scales like Ns∼O(α²Q²), where α is the Carleman truncation order and Q is the number of discrete velocities. Importantly, Ns is independent of the number of spatial and temporal discretization points. Resource estimates are then given for both PREP-SELECT block encoding, yielding T cost O(α³Q²(log₂n)²), and for the variational quantum linear solver, requiring Ns²(log₂(2ntn^α)+1) circuits per iteration with worst-case per-circuit T cost O(α(log₂Qn)²).

What carries the argument

The LCNU (linear combination of non-unitaries) together with a systematic embedding procedure that converts it into an LCU while keeping the exact number of terms unchanged.

Load-bearing premise

The LCNU construction can be turned into standard PREP and SELECT oracles without introducing extra factors that grow with the number of grid points.

What would settle it

An explicit calculation showing that the embedding step or the subsequent block-encoding introduces a multiplicative factor polynomial in n, the number of spatial points.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The same LCNU construction applies to any autonomous dynamical system that admits a polynomial Carleman linearization.
  • For the lattice Boltzmann equation the data-loading cost becomes independent of the spatial and temporal discretization.
  • When combined with PREP-SELECT oracles the total T-gate cost scales as O(α³Q²(log n)²).
  • When combined with the variational quantum linear solver the per-iteration circuit count is Ns²(log(2 n_t n^α)+1) with per-circuit T cost bounded by O(α (log Q n)²).

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the independence from grid size survives concrete circuit compilation, the approach could be applied to other discretized nonlinear PDEs whose Carleman forms have polynomial structure.
  • The method relaxes the usual requirement that the matrix itself admit a sparse or efficiently decomposable LCU, shifting the cost to the Carleman order and velocity count instead.
  • A direct test would be to implement the LCNU for small α and Q on a classical simulator and verify that the measured term count matches the O(α²Q²) scaling before any block encoding.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces an LCNU-based strategy for quantum data loading in Carleman-linearized autonomous dynamical systems with polynomial nonlinearity. For the lattice-Boltzmann equation, the number of terms Ns in the LCNU is shown to scale as O(α²Q²) independent of the spatial and temporal discretization points n. Resource estimates are provided for the T-gate cost using PREP/SELECT block-encoding oracles, scaling as O(α³Q²(log₂n)²), and for the variational quantum linear solver requiring Ns² circuits per iteration.

Significance. Should the LCNU construction and its block-encoding implementation prove correct with the stated scalings, the work provides a valuable framework for addressing data loading challenges in quantum algorithms for nonlinear PDEs. The independence of the term count from grid size, if maintained through the oracle implementations, is a significant advantage for scalability. The concrete resource estimates for both standard and variational approaches strengthen the practical assessment of the method.

major comments (1)
  1. [Resource estimation paragraphs] The claimed T-cost O(α³Q² (log₂n)²) for PREP and SELECT assumes that the individual non-unitary operators in the LCNU, acting on the Carleman tensor product space of dimension ~n^α, admit SELECT oracles whose cost is O(poly(α,Q,log n)) with no additional n-dependent factors from the spatial embedding. The manuscript must provide the explicit construction of these oracles to substantiate that the independence of Ns from n survives the concrete implementation, as potential position-dependent oracles could introduce costs that undermine the asymptotic advantage.
minor comments (1)
  1. The notation in the abstract mixes ∼ and O in 'Ns∼O(α²Q²)', which could be clarified to 'Ns = O(α²Q²)' for precision.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comment on the resource estimation. We address the point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Resource estimation paragraphs] The claimed T-cost O(α³Q² (log₂n)²) for PREP and SELECT assumes that the individual non-unitary operators in the LCNU, acting on the Carleman tensor product space of dimension ~n^α, admit SELECT oracles whose cost is O(poly(α,Q,log n)) with no additional n-dependent factors from the spatial embedding. The manuscript must provide the explicit construction of these oracles to substantiate that the independence of Ns from n survives the concrete implementation, as potential position-dependent oracles could introduce costs that undermine the asymptotic advantage.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit construction of the SELECT oracles is required to rigorously support the stated T-cost scaling. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection detailing the oracle construction. The non-unitary operators arising from the polynomial nonlinearity are embedded via the systematic LCNU procedure into the Carleman tensor-product space; each SELECT oracle is realized by a combination of controlled arithmetic circuits that act on the velocity and spatial indices. Because the embedding maps the original grid-dependent coefficients into a form where the position dependence is handled by standard quantum adders and comparators whose depth is O(log n), the per-oracle cost remains O(poly(α,Q,log n)) with no additional linear-in-n factors. Consequently the overall PREP/SELECT T-cost retains the claimed O(α³Q²(log₂n)²) scaling while preserving the n-independence of Ns. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: LCNU term count derived from explicit construction, not reduced to fit or self-citation

full rationale

The paper states it constructs a generalized LCNU framework for Carleman-linearized polynomial systems and then reports the resulting term count Ns ~ O(α²Q²) for the 3D LBE case as a direct outcome of that construction, with explicit independence from grid size n. Resource estimates are given separately and include the observed (log n) factors rather than hiding them. No equations reduce a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter by construction, no load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported via self-citation, and no ansatz is smuggled in. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the stated inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum-oracle assumptions (PREP/SELECT exist and can be implemented at the stated cost) and on the validity of Carleman truncation for the target dynamics; no new physical entities or fitted constants are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Standard block-encoding oracles (PREP and SELECT) can be realized for the LCNU operators at the cost stated in the resource estimates.
    Invoked when moving from the abstract LCNU term count to the T-gate scaling for both solvers.
  • domain assumption Carleman linearization of order α accurately captures the target nonlinear dynamics for the chosen truncation.
    Required for the whole framework to be useful; stated as background for the LBE application.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5922 in / 1599 out tokens · 28356 ms · 2026-07-01T08:23:38.645658+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Nonlinear ordinary and partial differential equations are ubiquitous in science and engineering, yet finding their solutions is often computationally intractable for classical hardware. To determine if quantum computers can offer a practical advantage, one critical challenge that must be solved is determining how to efficiently load exponentially sized matrices onto quantum hardware. In this article, we introduce an alternative linear combination of unitaries (LCU) strategy which relies on an intermediate linear combination of non-unitaries (LCNU) and a systematic embedding procedure. One advantage of this LCU strategy is that it maintains the exact number of terms as in the LCNU. Therefore, this approach offers a data loading framework for matrices that lack an efficient decomposition using the standard LCU alone. Using this approach, we construct a generalized LCNU framework for any Carleman linearized autonomous dynamical system having a polynomial nonlinearity. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, we construct an LCNU for the 3D Carleman linearized lattice Boltzmann equation (LBE). Here, we find that the number of terms in the decomposition scales like $N_s\sim\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2Q^2)$, where $\alpha$ is the Carleman truncation order and $Q$ is the number of discrete velocities. Importantly, $N_s$ is independent of the number of spatial and temporal discretization points. We then perform a resource estimation of our LCNU's T gate cost when combined with the (1) PREP and SELECT block encoding oracles, and (2) variational quantum linear solver. In the former, the T cost scales like $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^3Q^2(\log_2n)^2)$, where $n$ is the total number of spatial grid points. The latter requires exactly $N_s^2(\log_2 (2n_tn^\alpha)+1)$ circuits per iteration for $n_t$ time steps, with a worst case T gate cost of $\mathcal{O}(\alpha (\log_2Qn)^2)$ among them.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00302 by Abeynaya Gnanasekaran, Amit Surana, Daniel Gunlycke, Reuben Demirdjian, Thomas Hogancamp.

Figure 4.1
Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1: Embeddings for the two nontrivial L (e) 1 terms of (62): the emebedded L1,2 term (left) and the embedded L1,3 term (right). The |a⟩ wire is a single ancillary qubit required to embed each term into a unitary operation. A control operation or a single qubit gate on a multi-qubit register should be interpreted as the respective operation being applied to every wire within that register. The vertical dashed… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Embeddings for the two nontrivial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2: Embedding for L lin,1 λ as defined in (65b) using λ = (2, 1, 0, x, +1, m) for any m ∈ {1, . . . , NEη }, which is the most expensive circuit among any λ ∈ Λ1. The σf(η,m) block is the mth term in the Pauli decomposition of x-component of (52), and is therefore a tensor product of log Q Pauli gates. The S n +1 block is the incrementer circuit from (24). Then, by combining (25) with the nonlinear component… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Embedding for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.3. Figure 4.3: Embedding for L lin,2 λ as defined in (68b) using λ = (2, 1, 0, m) for any m ∈ {1, . . . , NR}, which is the most expensive circuit among any λ ∈ Λ2. The σg(m) gate is the mth term in the Pauli decomposition used in (55), and is therefore a tensor product of log Q Pauli gates. The VR and WR circuits come from the SVD in (55) and depend on the specific lattice structure used. where ˜Ii is defined in Secti… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Embedding for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.4. Figure 4.4: Embedding for L nlin λ as defined in (71b) using λ = (3, 2, α−2, α−3, q, m) for any m ∈ {1, . . . , NΓq } and q ∈ {1, . . . , Q}, which is the most expensive circuit among any λ ∈ Λ3. The circuits for P3, B3,q and the commutation matrix K(a,b) for integers a and b are provided in Appendices E.1, E.4 and E.5, respectively. The σh(q,m) gate is the mth term in the Pauli decomposition used in (59) and is the… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Embedding for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.1. Figure 5.1: T gate count to encode the Carleman linearized LBE matrix using the PREP and SELECT view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: T gate count to encode the Carleman linearized LBE matrix using the PREP and SELECT oracles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5.2
Figure 5.2. Figure 5.2: The number of circuits (NoC) and maximum T cost per circuit to encode the Carleman linearized view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The number of circuits (NoC) and maximum T cost per circuit to encode the Carleman linearized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p056_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p059_8.png] view at source ↗

Review history (4 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A Scalable Approach to Solve the Carleman Linearized Burgers' Equation on a Quantum Computer

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5

    LCNU loading plus multigrid-warmed VQLS solves Carleman-linearized 1D Burgers on quantum hardware/simulators, with circuits scaling to 2^80 points.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 115 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    To obtain the circuits for each of these expressions, we use the embedding procedure from Section II

    Circuits forL (e) 1 Using (23), we can writeL (e) 1 =P3 i=1 ciL1,i with L1,1 =I 2nt(Qn)α , L1,2 =ρ ⊗logn t 1 ⊗I 2(Qn)α , L1,3 =S nt +1 ⊗I 2(Qn)α , (62) wherec 1 =c 2 = 1 andc 3 =−1. To obtain the circuits for each of these expressions, we use the embedding procedure from Section II. Using Theorem 1, we find L1,1 =I 2nt(Qn)α , L1,2 =σ ⊗logn t x ⊗I 2(Qn)α ,...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Define the set of tuples Λ1 :={(i, j, l, η, p, m)|i∈ {1,2}, j∈ {1,

    Circuits forL (e) lin,1: Streaming Term We now turn our attention to the streaming terms associated withS. Define the set of tuples Λ1 :={(i, j, l, η, p, m)|i∈ {1,2}, j∈ {1, . . . α}, l∈ {0, . . . , j−1}, η∈ {x, y, z}, p∈ {+1,−1}, m∈ {1, . . . , N Eη }}. Then, by combining (25) with the linear component of (26) and inserting (15) and (53), we obtain L(e) ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Define the set of tuples Λ2 ={(i, j, l, m)|i∈ {1,2}, j∈ {1,

    Circuits forL (e) lin,2: Linear Collision Term We now turn our attention to the linear collision terms associated with ˜F1. Define the set of tuples Λ2 ={(i, j, l, m)|i∈ {1,2}, j∈ {1, . . . α}, l∈ {0, . . . , j−1}, m∈ {1, . . . , N R}}. Then, by combining (25) with the linear component of (26) and inserting (15) and (43), we obtain L(e) lin,2 = X λ∈Λ2 cli...

    work page

  4. [4]

    First, define the set of tuples Λ3 ={(k, i, j, l, q, m)|k∈ {2,3}, i∈ {1,2}, j∈ {1,

    Circuits forL (e) nlin: Nonlinear Collision Terms The final component to analyze isL (e) nlin, which contains both the quadratic and cubic nonlinear collision terms. First, define the set of tuples Λ3 ={(k, i, j, l, q, m)|k∈ {2,3}, i∈ {1,2}, j∈ {1, . . . , α−k+ 1}, l∈ {0, . . . , j−1}, q∈ {1, . . . , Q}, m∈ {1, . . . , N Γq }}. 24 ... ... |0⟩⊗ log Q V T R...

    work page

  5. [5]

    T Count forL (e) 1 Terms By applying (74) to the controlledL 1,i terms of (76), we haveG[CU(L 1,i)] =G[C L1,i] +G[C T(L 1,i)+1X] fori= 1,2,3. From the completions in (63) and using rows 1 and 5 from Table 2, we find 3X i=1 G[CL1,i] = logn tG[CX] +G[CS nt +1] = 12 log 2nt.(77) Next, with (64) we find thatT(L 1,1) = 0,T(L 1,2) = logn t, andT(L 1,3) = 0. Thi...

    work page

  6. [6]

    From (66), we see thatG[C Llin,1 λ ] =G[CS η,p,m]

    T Count forL (e) lin,1 Terms Next, from (65b) and (74), we see thatG[CU(L lin,1 λ )] =G[C Llin,1 λ ] +G[C T(L lin,1 λ )+1X] for a givenλ∈Λ 1. From (66), we see thatG[C Llin,1 λ ] =G[CS η,p,m]. Using the definition ofS η,p,m from (54) and assuming NEx =N Ey =N Ez, we find X λ∈Λ1 G[CLlin,1 λ ] = X λ∈Λ1 G[CS η,p,m] =α(α+ 1)N Ex X p∈{+1,−1} G[CS nx p ] +G[CS ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    T Count forL (e) lin,2 Terms Next, using (74) with theL lin,2 λ terms (68b) forλ∈Λ 2, we haveG[CU(L lin,2 λ )] =G[C Llin,2 λ ] + G[C T(L lin,2 λ )+1X]. From the completion in (69), and given that the T cost for any controlled Pauli gate is zero, we find that X λ∈Λ2 G[CLlin,2 λ ] =N Rα(α+ 1)(G[CW R] +G[CV R]),(83) whereG[CW R] andG[CV R] are found numerica...

    work page

  8. [8]

    We make the assumption thatG[CW Γq] =G[CW Γ] andG[CV Γq] =G[CV Γ] for allq∈ {1,

    T Count forL (e) nlin Terms Next, using (74) with theLnlin λ terms (71b) forλ∈Λ 3, we haveG[CU(L nlin λ )] =G[C Lnlin λ ]+G[C T(L nlin λ )+1X]. We make the assumption thatG[CW Γq] =G[CW Γ] andG[CV Γq] =G[CV Γ] for allq∈ {1, . . . , Q}, where G[CWΓ] = max{G[CW Γq]|q∈ {1, . . . , Q}}andG[CV Γ] = max{G[CV Γq]|q∈ {1, . . . , Q}}. Then, from the completion in ...

    work page

  9. [9]

    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 Sciences118, e2026805118 (2021)

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Kowalski and W.-h

    K. Kowalski and W.-h. Steeb,Nonlinear dynamical systems and Carleman linearization(World Scientific, 1991)

    work page 1991

  11. [11]

    A. M. Childs, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, Quantum algorithm for systems of linear equations with exponen- tially improved dependence on precision, SIAM Journal on Computing46, 1920–1950 (2017)

    work page 1920

  12. [12]

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations, Physical Review Letters103, 10.1103/physrevlett.103.150502 (2009)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.150502 2009

  13. [13]

    Bravo-Prieto, R

    C. Bravo-Prieto, R. LaRose, M. Cerezo, Y. Subasi, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum linear solver, Quantum7, 1188 (2023)

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    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)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    A. M. Dalzell, A shortcut to an optimal quantum linear system solver, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12086 (2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Aaronson, Read the fine print, Nature Physics11, 291 (2015)

    S. Aaronson, Read the fine print, Nature Physics11, 291 (2015)

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    Hantzko, L

    L. Hantzko, L. Binkowski, and S. Gupta, Tensorized pauli decomposition algorithm, Physica Scripta99, 085128 (2024)

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Gnanasekaran and A

    A. Gnanasekaran and A. Surana, Efficient variational quantum linear solver for structured sparse matrices, in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE)(IEEE, 2024) p. 199–210

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Gnanasekaran and A

    A. Gnanasekaran and A. Surana, Efficient quantum access model for sparse structured matrices using linear combination of “things”, Physical Review A113, 022437 (2026)

    work page 2026

  20. [20]

    Surana and A

    A. Surana and A. Gnanasekaran, Variational quantum framework for partial differential equation constrained optimization, ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing7, 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Li, Z.-X

    H.-M. Li, Z.-X. Wang, and S.-M. Fei, Variational quantum algorithms for poisson equations based on the de- composition of sparse hamiltonians, Physical Review A108, 032418 (2023). 36

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    J. Bae, G. Yoo, S. Nakamura, S. Ohnishi, and D. S. Kim, Hardware efficient decomposition of the laplace operator and its application to the helmholtz and the poisson equation on quantum computer, Quantum Information Processing23, 10.1007/s11128-024-04458-y (2024)

    work page doi:10.1007/s11128-024-04458-y 2024

  23. [23]

    Liu, Y.-S

    H.-L. Liu, Y.-S. Wu, L.-C. Wan, S.-J. Pan, S.-J. Qin, F. Gao, and Q.-Y. Wen, Variational quantum algorithm for the poisson equation, Phys. Rev. A104, 022418 (2021)

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Kondo, Y

    R. Kondo, Y. Sato, S. Koide, S. Kajita, and H. Takamatsu, Computationally efficient quantum expectation with extended bell measurements, arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.09735 (2021)

    work page arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Demirdjian, T

    R. Demirdjian, T. Hogancamp, and D. Gunlycke, Efficient decomposition of the carleman linearized burgers’ equation, Phys. Rev. A 10.1103/g27q-r2gk (2026)

    work page doi:10.1103/g27q-r2gk 2026

  26. [26]

    Demirdjian, D

    R. Demirdjian, D. Gunlycke, C. A. Reynolds, J. D. Doyle, and S. Tafur, Variational quantum solutions to the advection–diffusion equation for applications in fluid dynamics, Quantum Information Processing21, 10.1007/s11128-022-03667-7 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1007/s11128-022-03667-7 2022

  27. [27]

    Huang, H

    X. Huang, H. Nishi, Y. Kawada, T. Zushi, and Y.-i. Matsushita, Real and fourier space readout methods: Comparison of complexity and applications to cfd problems, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.20017 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Nguyen, Quantum algorithms for partial differential equations: A performance review and future trajectories, inIntelligent Sustainable Systems, edited by N

    T. Nguyen, Quantum algorithms for partial differential equations: A performance review and future trajectories, inIntelligent Sustainable Systems, edited by N. Atulya K., J. Dharm Singh, M. Durgesh Kumar, and A. Joshi (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2025) pp. 18–37

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    S. S. Bharadwaj and K. R. Sreenivasan, Compact quantum algorithms for time-dependent differential equations, Physical Review Research7, 023262 (2025)

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    Jennings, K

    D. Jennings, K. Korzekwa, M. Lostaglio, P. Mannix, R. Ashworth, E. Marsili, and S. Rolston, Simulating non- trivial incompressible flows with a quantum lattice boltzmann algorithm, inAIAA SCITECH 2026 Forum(2026) p. 1936

    work page 2026

  31. [31]

    Lewis, S

    D. Lewis, S. Eidenbenz, B. Nadiga, and Y. Suba¸ sı, Limitations for quantum algorithms to solve turbulent and chaotic systems, Quantum8, 1509 (2024)

    work page 2024

  32. [33]

    Sarma, T

    A. Sarma, T. W. Watts, M. Moosa, Y. Liu, and P. L. McMahon, Quantum variational solving of nonlinear and multidimensional partial differential equations, Physical Review A109, 062616 (2024)

    work page 2024

  33. [34]

    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 & Fluids288, 106507 (2025)

    work page 2025

  34. [35]

    H.-C. Wu, J. Wang, and X. Li, Quantum algorithms for nonlinear dynamics: Revisiting carleman linearization with no dissipative conditions, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing47, A943 (2025)

    work page 2025

  35. [36]

    Surana, A

    A. Surana, A. Gnanasekaran, and T. Sahai, An efficient quantum algorithm for simulating polynomial dynamical systems, Quantum Information Processing23, 10.1007/s11128-024-04311-2 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1007/s11128-024-04311-2 2024

  36. [37]

    Gourianov, P

    N. Gourianov, P. Givi, D. Jaksch, and S. B. Pope, Tensor networks enable the calculation of turbulence probability distributions, Science Advances11, eads5990 (2025), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.ads5990

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.ads5990 2025

  37. [38]

    M. C. Garrett, D. Ponkratov, and W. Qiu, Feasibility of accelerating incompressible computational fluid dynamics simulations with fault-tolerant quantum computers, Marine Technology Society Journal59, 62 (2025)

    work page 2025

  38. [39]

    Jennings, M

    D. Jennings, M. Lostaglio, R. B. Lowrie, S. Pallister, and A. T. Sornborger, The cost of solving linear differential equations on a quantum computer: fast-forwarding to explicit resource counts, Quantum8, 1553 (2024)

    work page 2024

  39. [40]

    Tennie and T

    F. Tennie and T. N. Palmer, Quantum computers for weather and climate prediction: The good, the bad, and the noisy, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society104, E488–E500 (2023)

    work page 2023

  40. [41]

    Gaitan, Finding flows of a navier–stokes fluid through quantum computing, npj Quantum Information6, 10.1038/s41534-020-00291-0 (2020)

    F. Gaitan, Finding flows of a navier–stokes fluid through quantum computing, npj Quantum Information6, 10.1038/s41534-020-00291-0 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-020-00291-0 2020

  41. [42]

    C. A. Williams, A. A. Gentile, V. E. Elfving, D. Berger, and O. Kyriienko, Quantum iterative methods for solving differential equations with application to computational fluid dynamics, Advanced Quantum Technologies , e00618 (2025)

    work page 2025

  42. [43]

    F. Oz, R. K. S. S. Vuppala, K. Kara, and F. Gaitan, Solving burgers’ equation with quantum computing, Quantum Information Processing21, 10.1007/s11128-021-03391-8 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1007/s11128-021-03391-8 2021

  43. [44]

    Jin and N

    S. Jin and N. Liu, Quantum algorithms for nonlinear partial differential equations, Bulletin des Sciences Math´ ematiques194, 103457 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [45]

    Lapworth, A hybrid quantum-classical cfd methodology with benchmark hhl solutions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.00419 (2022)

    L. Lapworth, A hybrid quantum-classical cfd methodology with benchmark hhl solutions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.00419 (2022). 37

    work page arXiv 2022

  45. [46]

    B. Ljubomir, Quantum algorithm for the navier–stokes equations by using the streamfunction-vorticity formulation and the lattice boltzmann method, International Journal of Quantum Information20, 10.1142/s0219749921500398 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1142/s0219749921500398 2022

  46. [47]

    Lubasch, J

    M. Lubasch, J. Joo, P. Moinier, M. Kiffner, and D. Jaksch, Variational quantum algorithms for nonlinear prob- lems, Physical Review A101, 10.1103/physreva.101.010301 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.101.010301 2020

  47. [48]

    Hogancamp, R

    T. Hogancamp, R. Demirdjian, and D. Gunlycke, A linear combination of unitaries decomposition for the laplace operator, arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.06370 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  48. [49]

    Y. Gan, H. Alipanah, J. Cheng, Z. Wu, G. Li, J. J. Mendoza-Arenas, P. Givi, M. R. Malik, B. J. McDermott, and J. Liu, Provably efficient quantum algorithms for solving nonlinear differential equations using multiple bosonic modes coupled with qubits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.09939 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [50]

    Penuel, A

    J. Penuel, A. Katabarwa, P. D. Johnson, P. Kuklinski, B. Rempfer, C. Farquhar, Y. Cao, and M. C. Gar- rett, Detailed assessment of calculating drag force with quantum computers: Explicit time-evolution precludes exponential advantage for nonlinear differential equations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06323 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  50. [51]

    Gonzalez-Conde, D

    J. Gonzalez-Conde, D. Lewis, S. S. Bharadwaj, and M. Sanz, Quantum carleman linearization efficiency in nonlinear fluid dynamics, Physical Review Research7, 023254 (2025)

    work page 2025

  51. [52]

    Y. T. Lin, R. B. Lowrie, D. Aslangil, Y. Suba¸ sı, and A. T. Sornborger, Challenges for quantum computation of nonlinear dynamical systems using linear representations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.02188 (2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  52. [53]

    Quantum algorithms for general nonlinear dynamics based on the Carleman embedding

    D. Jennings, K. Korzekwa, M. Lostaglio, A. T. Sornborger, Y. Subasi, and G. Wang, Quantum algorithms for general nonlinear dynamics based on the carleman embedding, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.07155 (2025)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  53. [55]

    Itani and S

    W. Itani and S. Succi, Analysis of carleman linearization of lattice boltzmann, Fluids7, 24 (2022)

    work page 2022

  54. [56]

    Sanavio and S

    C. Sanavio and S. Succi, Lattice boltzmann–carleman quantum algorithm and circuit for fluid flows at moderate reynolds number, AVS Quantum Science6(2024)

    work page 2024

  55. [57]

    Sanavio, R

    C. Sanavio, R. Scatamacchia, C. De Falco, and S. Succi, Three carleman routes to the quantum simulation of classical fluids, Physics of Fluids36(2024)

    work page 2024

  56. [58]

    Succi, C

    S. Succi, C. Sanavio, L. Cappelli, and P. Love, The foundational value of quantum computing for classical fluids, Europhysics Letters153, 28001 (2026)

    work page 2026

  57. [59]

    Sanavio, W

    C. Sanavio, W. A. Simon, A. Ralli, P. Love, and S. Succi, Carleman-lattice-boltzmann quantum circuit with matrix access oracles, Physics of Fluids37(2025)

    work page 2025

  58. [60]

    Jennings , author K

    D. Jennings, K. Korzekwa, M. Lostaglio, R. Ashworth, E. Marsili, and S. Rolston, An end-to-end quantum algo- rithm for nonlinear fluid dynamics with bounded quantum advantage, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.03758 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  59. [61]

    Kramer and G

    B. Kramer and G. Pogudin, Discovering polynomial and quadratic structure in nonlinear ordinary differential equations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.10005 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  60. [62]

    C. Xu, L. He, and Z. Lin, Commutation matrices and commutation tensors, Linear and Multilinear Algebra68, 1721 (2018)

    work page 2018

  61. [63]

    Kr¨ uger, H

    T. Kr¨ uger, H. Kusumaatmaja, A. Kuzmin, O. Shardt, G. Silva, and E. M. Viggen,The lattice Boltzmann method, Vol. 10 (Springer, 2017)

    work page 2017

  62. [64]

    P. L. Bhatnagar, E. P. Gross, and M. Krook, A model for collision processes in gases. i. small amplitude processes in charged and neutral one-component systems, Phys. Rev.94, 511 (1954)

    work page 1954

  63. [65]

    X. Li, X. Yin, N. Wiebe, J. Chun, G. K. Schenter, M. S. Cheung, and J. M¨ ulmenst¨ adt, Potential quantum advantage for simulation of fluid dynamics, Physical Review Research7, 013036 (2025)

    work page 2025

  64. [66]

    Kay, Tutorial on the quantikz package, arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.03842 (2018)

    A. Kay, Tutorial on the quantikz package, arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.03842 (2018)

    work page arXiv 2018

  65. [67]

    A. M. Childs and N. Wiebe, Hamiltonian simulation using linear combinations of unitary operations, arXiv preprint arXiv:1202.5822 (2012)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  66. [68]

    Hariprakash, N

    S. Hariprakash, N. S. Modi, M. Kreshchuk, C. F. Kane, and C. W. Bauer, Strategies for simulating the time evolution of hamiltonian lattice field theories, Physical Review A111, 022419 (2025)

    work page 2025

  67. [69]

    Selinger, Quantum circuits oft-depth one, Phys

    P. Selinger, Quantum circuits oft-depth one, Phys. Rev. A87, 042302 (2013)

    work page 2013

  68. [70]

    Khattar and C

    T. Khattar and C. Gidney, Rise of conditionally clean ancillae for efficient quantum circuit constructions, Quan- tum9, 1752 (2025)

    work page 2025

  69. [71]

    Constructing large increment gates (2015)

    work page 2015

  70. [72]

    MQ Cruz and B

    P. MQ Cruz and B. Murta, Shallow unitary decompositions of quantum fredkin and toffoli gates for connectivity- aware equivalent circuit averaging, APL Quantum1(2024). 38

    work page 2024

  71. [73]

    Gnanasekaran, A

    A. Gnanasekaran, A. Surana, and H. Zhu, Variational quantum framework for nonlinear pde constrained opti- mization using carleman linearization, Quantum Information & Computation25, 260 (2025)

    work page 2025

  72. [74]

    Quantum computing with Qiskit

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross,et al., Quantum computing with qiskit, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08810 (2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  73. [75]

    Lapworth and C

    L. Lapworth and C. S¨ underhauf, Preconditioned block encodings for quantum linear systems, Quantum Science and Technology10, 045064 (2025)

    work page 2025

  74. [76]

    S. Jin, N. Liu, C. Ma, and Y. Yu, Quantum preconditioning method for linear systems problems via schrodin- gerization, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.06866 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  75. [77]

    Hosaka, K

    A. Hosaka, K. Yanagisawa, S. Koshikawa, I. Kudo, X. Alifu, and T. Yoshida, Preconditioning for a variational quantum linear solver, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.15657 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  76. [78]

    Golden, D

    J. Golden, D. O’Malley, and H. Viswanathan, Quantum computing and preconditioners for hydrological linear systems, Scientific Reports12, 22285 (2022)

    work page 2022

  77. [79]

    Larocca, S

    M. Larocca, S. Thanasilp, S. Wang, K. Sharma, J. Biamonte, P. J. Coles, L. Cincio, J. R. McClean, Z. Holmes, and M. Cerezo, Barren plateaus in variational quantum computing, Nature Reviews Physics , 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  78. [80]

    A. J. Pool, A. D. Somoza, C. Mc Keever, M. Lubasch, and B. Horstmann, Nonlinear dynamics as a ground-state solution on quantum computers, Physical Review Research6, 033257 (2024)

    work page 2024

  79. [81]

    C. M. Keller, S. Eidenbenz, A. B¨ artschi, D. O’Malley, J. Golden, and S. Misra, Hierarchical multigrid ansatz for variational quantum algorithms, inISC High Performance 2024 Research Paper Proceedings (39th International Conference)(2024) pp. 1–11

    work page 2024

  80. [82]

    Gunlycke, M

    D. Gunlycke, M. C. Palenik, A. R. Emmert, and S. A. Fischer, Efficient algorithm for generating pauli coordinates for an arbitrary linear operator, arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.08942 (2020)

    work page arXiv 2011

Showing first 80 references.