Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 62 references

Simulating fluid vortex interactions on a superconducting quantum processor

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Vortex leapfrogging can be reproduced on an eight-qubit superconducting processor by encoding vortex positions as wavefunctions and evolving them with a fitted effective Hamiltonian, with state fidelities above 97%.

desk verdict Clever spatiotemporal encoding circuit, but the leapfrog 'simulation' is a fitted surrogate whose linearization error is never quantified. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04023 v1 pith:ES5VMENW submitted 2025-06-04 quant-ph physics.flu-dyn

Ziteng Wang , Jiarun Zhong , Ke Wang , Zitian Zhu , Zehang Bao , Chenjia Zhu , Wenwen Zhao , Yaomin Zhao
show 3 more authors
Yue Yang Chao Song Shiying Xiong
This is my paper
classification quant-phphysics.flu-dyn
keywords quantumvortexmethodleapfroggingsuperconductingprocessorspatiotemporalencodingNavier-StokesequationseffectiveHamiltonianstatetomographyvariationalalgorithm
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

The paper claims that vortex interactions in fluids can be simulated on a quantum processor by re-expressing the vortex particle system as a wavefunction that obeys a generalized Schrödinger equation. The authors introduce a quantum vortex method (QVM) in which vortex positions are encoded into spatial qubits, while auxiliary temporal qubits in superposition store all time steps, so the whole trajectory is prepared in a single quantum execution. They fit an effective Hamiltonian to a finite window of classical training data and build an evolution circuit from it. Using eight qubits on a superconducting processor, they report reproducing the leapfrogging of four vortex particles with state fidelities above 97% and position deviations below 0.2, including time steps beyond the training window. If this holds, quantum hardware becomes a platform for studying vortex dynamics, and the spatiotemporal encoding offers a way to retrieve many time steps from one run rather than re-preparing the state after each measurement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective Hamiltonian $H_{\rm eff}(\theta)$, a Hermitian matrix fitted so that its propagator $e^{-iH_{\rm eff}\Delta t}$ maps consecutive training states onto one another. It converts the nonlinear vortex equation into a linear time-evolution that can be compiled into quantum gates. Around it sits the spatiotemporal encoding circuit: $n_p$ spatial qubits hold the vortex wavefunction $\psi$, while $n_t$ temporal qubits are prepared in a uniform superposition and, through controlled-$F_k$ gates with $F_k=e^{-iH_{\rm eff}(2^{k-1})\Delta t}$, make the spatial register branch into a superposition of states at all $2^{n_t}$ time steps; measurements on the temporal qubits then select the corresponding time slice. The transformation $\psi_j=\lambda(\phi_j-\int_0^t c\,d\tau+c_0)$ and the choice of $c(t)$ are what guarantee the state stays normalized, which is what allows a quantum wavefunction to represent vortex positions at all.

What would settle it

Take the same trained $H_{\rm eff}$ and either extend the evolution well beyond $t=18$ (several leapfrog periods) or start from a different symmetric initial configuration, then compare the circuit output with a high-precision classical integration of Eq. (S14). If the position deviations grow without bound or the leapfrog period is not reproduced, the linear surrogate claim is falsified. A more direct check would be to compare the eigenvalues of $H_{\rm eff}$ with those of the exact linearization of Eq. (S14) about the training trajectory; a large spectral mismatch would explain any drift.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a data-driven quantum vortex method can faithfully reproduce natural vortex interactions on current hardware. Starting from the Navier–Stokes equations, the paper discretizes vorticity into point vortices, maps each vortex position to a complex variable, and introduces the transformation $\psi_j=\lambda(\phi_j-\int_0^t c(\tau)d\tau+c_0)$ with a normalization-preserving choice of $c(t)$; the resulting system is written as $d\psi_j/dt=iH(\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_{N_p})$. Because the exact equation is nonlinear, the paper replaces it, within a training window, by a linear system $d\psi/dt=-iH_{\rm eff}(\theta)\psi+\varepsilon(t)$, fits the Hermitian matrix $H_{\rm eff}$ to 100 state pairs spanning roughly one leapfrog period, and builds unitaries $F_k=\exp(-iH_{\rm eff}(2^{k-1})\Delta t)$ that advance the state by $2^{k-1}$ time steps. Controlled applications of these $F_k$, guided by temporal qubits in a Hadamard superposition, produce a final state whose components are the spatial states at all encoded times. From quantum state tomography postselected on the temporal qubits, the authors extract vortex trajectories and report agreement with a noiseless simulation of the same fitted model: fidelities above 97% and position deviations below 0.2 for the leapfrog test, plus numerical demonstrations for an eight-vortex turbulent-like system and for a viscous two-vortex system.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the nonlinear vortex dynamics can be replaced, for all times and initial conditions of interest, by the fixed linear propagator $e^{-iH_{\rm eff}\Delta t}$ learned from a single training window of length 18; if that surrogate is accurate only inside the training window, the experimental trajectories are predictions of the fitted model, not of the vortex equations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single execution of the spatiotemporal circuit yields vortex states at every encoded time step; the usual need to re-prepare the state after each measurement and take a fresh shot per time is removed.
  • If the reported fidelities hold, quantum hardware can reproduce vortex leapfrogging, a nonlinear fluid phenomenon, with errors below a few percent on current superconducting devices.
  • The same encoding enlarges the accessible Hilbert space by using temporal qubits as an extra information axis, so trajectories, neural-network parameters, or other time-ordered data could be stored and retrieved in superposition.
  • The data-driven linearization means the method applies not only to ideal point vortices but, in the paper's numerical demonstrations, to turbulent-like eight-vortex systems and to viscous two-vortex flows where the classical Lagrangian vortex method faces limitations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the experimental result is primarily a hardware demonstration, because the trajectory is generated by iterating the fitted linear propagator, so the experiment validates that the circuit reproduces that propagator rather than that the QVM captures physics the classical fit does not already contain.
  • Inference: the linearization fitted on one leapfrog period resembles dynamic mode decomposition; if the true vortex dynamics leave the subspace spanned by the training window, the fixed $H_{\rm eff}$ is likely to drift, making the method's reach depend on how repeatable the collective motion is.
  • Inference: a natural extension would be to test generalization by training on one initial condition and running the same $H_{\rm eff}$ on another symmetric set of vortex strengths or positions, then comparing with direct integration of Eq. (S14).
  • Inference: if the spatiotemporal encoding's Hilbert-space expansion is exploited for data storage, its utility will hinge on whether the controlled-$F_k$ circuit depth remains modest as $n_t$ grows; otherwise the exponential time capacity is bought at exponential circuit cost.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantum vortex method (QVM) that reformulates two-dimensional point-vortex dynamics as a nonlinear Schrödinger-type evolution equation (Eq. S14) for a normalized wavefunction, with a reference-point function c(t) accounting for collective motion. To make the problem amenable to quantum hardware, the authors replace this nonlinear system by a linear system with an effective Hamiltonian H_eff(θ) (Eq. S31), fit H_eff to a training window of 100 state pairs over t∈[0,18] (Eq. S32), and construct evolution unitaries F_k = exp(-iH_eff(θ)2^{k-1}Δt_predict) (Eq. S33). They design a spatiotemporal encoding circuit in which n_t temporal qubits hold all time steps, enabling retrieval of multiple time steps from a single execution. The paper reports an eight-qubit superconducting-processor implementation of a four-vortex leapfrog configuration, with state fidelities above 97% and position deviations below 0.2 relative to a noiseless simulation, plus numerical VQA results for an eight-vortex turbulent system and a two-vortex viscous system.

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, the paper would demonstrate a useful new bridge between vortex dynamics and quantum simulation: the exact transformation to a normalized wavefunction (Eq. S14) is a genuine theoretical contribution, and the spatiotemporal encoding scheme that avoids per-time-step measurement is a practical advance. The hardware results also show that the device can faithfully execute a fitted unitary propagator with high fidelity. However, the leapfrog validation is performed only against the noiseless output of the fitted linear surrogate, not against an independent solution of the vortex dynamics. As a result, the paper currently establishes a hardware engineering result—execution of a learned linear propagator—rather than a validated simulation of natural vortex interactions. With an added comparison to the true point-vortex or Eq. (S14) dynamics and a quantified characterization of the linearization error, the significance of the work would be substantially strengthened.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplementary Note 3, Eqs. (S31)–(S33); Fig. 3] The noiseless simulation that serves as the reference in Fig. 3b is generated by the same fitted linear propagator F_k = exp(-iH_eff(θ)2^{k-1}Δt_predict) whose H_eff was fitted to training data in t∈[0,18] via Eq. (S32). Therefore the reported state fidelity >97% and position deviation <0.2 quantify how accurately the hardware executes this surrogate, not how accurately the QVM reproduces the leapfrogging vortex dynamics described by Eq. (S14) or the underlying point-vortex ODE (Eq. S10). The abstract and the 'Nonlinear interactions in vortex systems' section claim that the experiment reproduces natural vortex interactions; that claim requires a comparison with an independent numerical solution of the vortex dynamics, which is absent for the four-vortex case.
  2. [Supplementary Note 3, Eq. (S31)] The linearization residual ε(t) in Eq. (S31) and the assertion that the linear system approximates the original system 'within a certain range' are never quantified. The training window covers approximately one leapfrog period, while the circuit is propagated to t≈81, well beyond the training range. Without a bound on ε(t) or evidence that the learned linear propagator tracks the nonlinear trajectory over this extrapolated interval, the experimental trajectories cannot be claimed to simulate the vortex interactions themselves.
  3. [Supplementary Note 1, Figs. S1–S2] For the leapfrog example, the random-sampling approximation of c(t) yields a maximum position error of 0.147 (Fig. S2), which is of the same order as the reported position deviation <0.2. Because the experimental comparison is made against the noiseless surrogate—which already includes this approximation—the deviation of the hardware result from the true vortex dynamics is not bounded by 0.2. The authors should report the accuracy of the full QVM, including the c(t) approximation, against the exact point-vortex solution.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Experimental setup] The text refers to 'temporal qupits'; this should be corrected to 'temporal qubits'.
  2. [Main text, Eqs. (3)–(4) and Supplementary Note 1, Eq. (S13)] The definition of c(t) in the main text differs notationally from the supplementary version; in particular, the denominator (PNp i ψi) lacks parentheses and the relationship between the two expressions should be clarified.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption's 'Ideal Noisy Sim. Exp.' is ambiguous; the three curves should be labeled unambiguously as 'noiseless simulation', 'noisy simulation', and 'experiment'.
  4. [Methods, 'Implementing the evolution modules'] The statement that Δt_predict 'can be theoretically arbitrary' is misleading in the context of extrapolation; in practice it is constrained by the validity of the linear approximation, and the paper should acknowledge this.
  5. [Discussion] The claim of an 'exponential increase in capacity compared to classical systems of similar scale' is not substantiated by the demonstrated protocol and should be either supported with a resource comparison or softened.
  6. [Results, 'Turbulent vortex particle system' and 'Viscous vortex particle systems'] The turbulent and viscous sections are numerical simulations performed with MindQuantum, not hardware experiments; the viscous ground-truth comparison is for a two-vortex system and does not validate the four-vortex hardware leapfrog claim. The paper should state this distinction more clearly.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The long-time leapfrog trajectories are generated by the propagator fitted over t in [0,18], and the reported fidelities compare hardware against the noiseless version of that same fitted circuit; the vortex-physics claim is therefore validated only self-referentially.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Main text, 'Nonlinear interactions in vortex systems' (Fig. 3a) and Methods, 'Implementing the evolution modules'; Supplementary Note 3, Eqs. (S31)-(S33)]
    "To learn the Hamiltonian of the vortex system, we select100vortex state pairs at time(t_i, ti + 1)to form the training set. Here, ti = 0.18(i−1)withi= 1, . . . ,100is equally sampled from a time range of[0,18], which roughly corresponds to the period of a full leapfrogging cycle... In Fig. 3a, we plot the experimentally extracted trajectory of the four vortex particles for time steps outside of the training set, i.e., aftert= 18... The evolution matricesF k are then constructed similarly throughe −iHeff(θ)(2k−1)∆tpredict"

    The circuit propagates with F_k(theta) = exp(-iH_eff(theta) 2^(k-1) Delta t_predict) (Eq. S33), and H_eff is obtained by minimizing Eq. (S32) over state pairs in t in [0,18]. Thus the 'after t=18' trajectories are not independent vortex physics (Eqs. S10/S14 or the NS solution that generated the data) but the fitted linear surrogate's own continuation. The residual epsilon(t) in Eq. (S31) is never quantified, so nothing in the reported numbers distinguishes a genuinely predictive model from a fit that happens to extrapolate. What is called a prediction outside the training set is therefore the fitted propagator iterated, not an independent solution of the vortex dynamics.

  2. self definitional [Main text, 'Nonlinear interactions in vortex systems' ('To characterize the experimental performance...') and Fig. 3 caption]
    "For comparison, we conduct ideal (noiseless) and noisy simulations using the same circuit as in the experiments. ... To characterize the experimental performance, we compare the reconstructed state of the spatial qubits and positions of the vortex particles with those obtained from noiseless numerical simulation (Fig. 3b)."

    The 'noiseless numerical simulation' is an execution of the same circuit whose F_k(theta) come from the fitted H_eff(theta). Thus the fidelity F = |<psi_t_ideal|psi_t_exp>|^2 and the deviation d = sum |r_t_exp - r_t_ideal| measure how faithfully the hardware implements the fitted unitary, not whether that unitary encodes leapfrogging physics. A perfect device running an incorrect surrogate would still give F=1 and d=0. Because the reference ('ideal') state is generated by the same fitted model that is being sold as the prediction, the experimental validation is self-referential by construction.

full rationale

The core circularity is in the leapfrog hardware experiment. The paper's own equations show that H_eff is fitted to one period of training data via Eq. (S32), and then every later state is obtained by exponentiating that fitted H_eff through Eq. (S33). The reported success is measured against the noiseless output of the same fitted circuit, so the state fidelities and position deviations quantify circuit execution fidelity, not physical predictive fidelity. Supplementary Note 3 also admits the linearization is an approximation 'within a certain range' and never quantifies the residual epsilon(t); that unquantified extrapolation is exactly where the vortex-physics claim would need independent verification against the point-vortex ODE (S10) or a grid-based NS solution. The paper does contain an independent numerical validation in the viscous two-vortex section, where QVM is compared with grid Eulerian ground truth, and the spatiotemporal encoding circuit is a genuine algorithmic contribution; those parts keep the paper from being wholly circular. The self-citations to [S1] and [S2] are background methodological references and are not load-bearing. Overall, the central four-vortex claim is partially circular: the predicted trajectories reduce to the fitted propagator, and the hardware benchmark compares against that same propagator.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central simulation rests on a Hamiltonian matrix fitted to classical data, not derived from the fluid equations, plus two ad hoc approximations (linearization, constant c(t)). No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • Effective Hamiltonian H_eff matrix entries = not reported (N_p^2 = 16 real parameters for the 4-vortex experiment)
    Fitted via Eq. (S32) to minimize the mismatch between exp(-iH_eff dt) and the numerical evolution over the training window; the resulting propagator is what the quantum circuit implements.
  • Variational circuit parameters (VQA) for turbulent and viscous cases = not reported
    Optimized to fit the target vortex dynamics in the numerical simulations; the ansatz and cost function are defined in Supplementary Note 3.
  • Random sampling proportion for c(t) reconstruction = 0.4 in the leapfrog example
    Chosen by hand for the approximate reconstruction of vortex positions from the wavefunction; error scales with this ratio (Fig. S1).
  • Training time range and sampling = t in [0,18], 100 pairs
    Manually selected; covers roughly one leapfrog period and fixes the data used to fit H_eff.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 2D point vortex Hamiltonian (Eq. S6) is a valid model for the vortex interactions being simulated
    The QVM derivation starts from this classical model, which neglects viscosity and 3D effects in the leapfrog experiment.
  • ad hoc to paper The nonlinear evolution (Eq. S14) can be approximated by a linear system dψ/dt = -iH_eff(θ)ψ with negligible residual ε(t)
    Introduced in Supplementary Note 3 to make the dynamics implementable by a unitary circuit; no rigorous error bound is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper c(t) can be replaced by a constant average obtained from random sampling
    Used for trajectory reconstruction; only numerical error estimates are given (Figs. S1, S2).
  • standard math Standard results from complex analysis and linear algebra
    Used in the normalization theorem and in the construction of the controlled-unitary circuit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulating fluid vortex interactions on a superconducting quantum processor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ES5VMENW

@misc{pith2026250604023,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulating fluid vortex interactions on a superconducting quantum processor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ES5VMENW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04023}
}
read the original abstract

Vortex interactions are commonly observed in atmospheric turbulence, plasma dynamics, and collective behaviors in biological systems. However, accurately simulating these complex interactions is highly challenging due to the need to capture fine-scale details over extended timescales, which places computational burdens on traditional methods. In this study, we introduce a quantum vortex method, reformulating the Navier--Stokes (NS) equations within a quantum mechanical framework to enable the simulation of multi-vortex interactions on a quantum computer. We construct the effective Hamiltonian for the vortex system and implement a spatiotemporal evolution circuit to simulate its dynamics over prolonged periods. By leveraging eight qubits on a superconducting quantum processor with gate fidelities of 99.97\% for single-qubit gates and 99.76\% for two-qubit gates, we successfully reproduce natural vortex interactions. This method bridges classical fluid dynamics and quantum computing, offering a novel computational platform for studying vortex dynamics. Our results demonstrate the potential of quantum computing to tackle longstanding challenges in fluid dynamics and broaden applications across both natural and engineering systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04023 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview for implementing vortex interactions using a superconducting quantum chip. a, Vortex pairs generated by paddling in natural fluid systems. b, Laboratory-induced vortex interactions, leading to a frog-leap configuration (Reprinted from Lim (1997) [1], with the permission of AIP Publishing.). c, Schematic of our superconducting quantum chip, where all qubits are arranged in a square lattice with nearest-neigh… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The evolution circuit of the QVM method. The circuit con￾sists of np spatial qubits encoding the spatial state of vortex parti￾cles and nt temporal qubits encoding the temporal information. The spatial qubits are initialized via the "State Prep." module, while the temporal qubits are prepared in a uniform superposition state using Hadamard gates. The quantum parallel evolution illustrated in Fig. 1f is achieved thro… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Experimental results of nonlinear interactions in vortex systems. a, Trajectories of vortex particles obtained from ideal (noiseless) simulation, noisy simulation, and experimental data. b, Fidelity and the position deviations as functions of time. The fidelity F at each time step t is defined as F = | ⟨ψ t ideal|ψ t exp⟩ |2 , where |ψ t exp⟩ and |ψ t ideal⟩ denote the state vector of the spatial qubits obtained thr… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The simulation results of turbulent vortex particle system and viscous vortex particle system. a, Flow field visualization rendered based on vortex particle position data from initial time to t = 128. b, Velocity distribution of the flow field at t = 128. c, Flow field…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    T. T. Lim, A note on the leapfrogging between two coaxial vortex rings at low reynolds numbers, Phys. Fluids9, 239 (1997)

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    Fiorino and R

    M. Fiorino and R. L. Elsberry, Some aspects of vortex structure related to tropical cyclone motion, J. Atmos. Sci.46, 975 (1989)

    work page 1989

  3. [3]

    Rios-Berrios, P

    R. Rios-Berrios, P. M. Finocchio, J. J. Alland, X. Chen, M. S. Fischer, S. N. Stevenson, and D. Tao, A review of the interactions between tropical cyclones and environmental vertical wind shear, J. Atmos. Sci.81, 713 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Wang and C.-C

    Y . Wang and C.-C. Wu, Current understanding of tropical cy- 7 /s8722 /s490 1 /s8722/s490 1 x G round TruthQVMy e /s8722 /s490 1 /s8722/s490 1 G round TruthLVMy x f 0 .60 v/s8722 /s490 1 ya t = 128b /s8722 /s490 1 /s8722/s490 1 x y c t = 384d /s8722 /s490 1 x Fig. 4.The simulation results of turbulent vortex particle system and viscous vortex particle sys...

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    J. C. McWilliams, Submesoscale, coherent vortices in the ocean, Rev. Geophys.23, 165 (1985)

    work page 1985

  6. [6]

    Zhang, G

    Z. Zhang, G. Wang, H. Wang, and H. Liu, Three-dimensional structure of oceanic mesoscale eddies, Ocean-land-atmos. Res. 3, 0051 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Jebri, M

    F. Jebri, M. Srokosz, D. E. Raitsos, Z. L. Jacobs, A. Sanchez- Franks, and E. Popova, Absence of the great whirl giant ocean vortex abates productivity in the somali upwelling region, Com- mun. Earth Environ.5, 20 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    J. Y . Han, J. N. La F., and D. L. DeV oe, Microfluidic vortex fo- cusing for high throughput synthesis of size-tunable liposomes, Nat. Commun.13, 6997 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Thurgood, S

    P. Thurgood, S. Needham, E. Pirogova, K. Peter, S. Baratchi, and K. Khoshmanesh, Dynamic vortex generation, pulsed injec- tion, and rapid mixing of blood samples in microfluidics using the tube oscillation mechanism, Anal. Chem.95, 3089 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    M. Y . Tanaka, V ortex in plasma, Rev. Mod. Plasma Phys3, 9 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    N. I. Izhovkina, S. N. Artekha, N. S. Erokhin, and L. A. Mikhailovskaya, Interaction of atmospheric plasma vortices, Pure Appl. Geophys.173, 2945 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Xiong and Y

    S. Xiong and Y . Yang, Effects of twist on the evolution of knot- ted magnetic flux tubes, J. Fluid Mech.895, A28 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Aluie,Hydrodynamic and magnetohydrodynamic turbu- lence: invariants, cascades, and locality, Ph.D

    H. Aluie,Hydrodynamic and magnetohydrodynamic turbu- lence: invariants, cascades, and locality, Ph.D. thesis, The Johns Hopkins University (2009)

    2009

  6. [14]

    V . Y . Belashov, Interaction of n-vortex structures in a con- tinuum, including atmosphere, hydrosphere and plasma, Adv. Space Res.60, 1878 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    W. Shen, J. Yao, and Y . Yang, Designing turbulence with entan- gled vortices, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.121, e2405351121 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    A. P. Almoguera and D. Kivotides, V ortex dynamics of turbu- lent energy cascades, Phys. Fluids36, 125156 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    A. J. Majda and A. L. Bertozzi,Vorticity and incompressible flow.(Cambridge University Press, 2002)

    2002

  10. [18]

    B. R. Morton, The generation and decay of vorticity, Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn.28, 277 (1984)

    1984

  11. [19]

    Ishihara, T

    T. Ishihara, T. Gotoh, and Y . Kaneda, Study of high–reynolds number isotropic turbulence by direct numerical simulation, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.41, 165 (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    J. H. Ferziger, M. Peri ´c, and R. L. Street,Computational meth- ods for fluid dynamics(springer, 2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Kochkov, J

    D. Kochkov, J. A. Smith, A. Alieva, Q. Wang, M. P. Brenner, and S. Hoyer, Machine learning–accelerated computational fluid dynamics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.118, e2101784118 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Blocken, Computational Fluid Dynamics for urban physics: Importance, scales, possibilities, limitations and ten tips and tricks towards accurate and reliable simulations, Build

    B. Blocken, Computational Fluid Dynamics for urban physics: Importance, scales, possibilities, limitations and ten tips and tricks towards accurate and reliable simulations, Build. Environ. 91, 219 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    J.-P. Liu, H. Ø. Kolden, H. K. Krovi, N. F. Loureiro, K. Triv- isa, and A. M. Childs, Efficient quantum algorithm for dissipa- tive nonlinear differential equations, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.118, e2026805118 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Tennie and L

    F. Tennie and L. Magri, Solving nonlinear differential equa- 8 tions on quantum computers: A fokker-planck approach, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.13500 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Lloyd, G

    S. Lloyd, G. De P., C. Gokler, B. Kiani, Z.-W. Liu, M. Mar- vian, F. Tennie, and T. Palmer, Quantum algorithm for nonlinear differential equations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.06571 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Pfeffer, F

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

    2022

  19. [27]

    Kyriienko, A

    O. Kyriienko, A. E. Paine, and V . E. Elfving, Solving nonlinear differential equations with differentiable quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. A103, 052416 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Lubasch, J

    M. Lubasch, J. Joo, P. Moinier, M. Kiffner, and D. Jaksch, Vari- ational quantum algorithms for nonlinear problems, Phys. Rev. A101, 010301 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 150502 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

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

    2017

  23. [31]

    Steijl and G

    R. Steijl and G. N. Barakos, Parallel evaluation of quantum al- gorithms for computational fluid dynamics, Comput. Fluids173, 22 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Gaitan, Finding flows of a navier–stokes fluid through quan- tum computing, NPJ Quantum Inf.6, 61 (2020)

    F. Gaitan, Finding flows of a navier–stokes fluid through quan- tum computing, NPJ Quantum Inf.6, 61 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Z.-Y . Chen, C. Xue, S.-M. Chen, B.-H. Lu, Y .-C. Wu, J.-C. Ding, S.-H. Huang, and G.-P. Guo, Quantum approach to accel- erate finite volume method on steady computational fluid dynam- ics problems, Quantum Inf. Process.21, 137 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    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)

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    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 Inf. Process.21, 322 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Succi, W

    S. Succi, W. Itani, C. Sanavio, K. R. Sreenivasan, and R. Steijl, Ensemble fluid simulations on quantum computers, Comput. Fluids270, 106148 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    B. Liu, L. Zhu, Z. Yang, and G. He, Quantum implementation of numerical methods for convection-diffusion equations: To- ward computational fluid dynamics, Commun. Comput. Phys. 33, 425 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Jaksch, P

    D. Jaksch, P. Givi, A. J. Daley, and T. Rung, Variational quan- tum algorithms for computational fluid dynamics, AIAA J.61, 1885 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Ljubomir, Quantum algorithm for the Navier–Stokes equa- tions by using the streamfunction-vorticity formulation and the lattice Boltzmann method, Int

    B. Ljubomir, Quantum algorithm for the Navier–Stokes equa- tions by using the streamfunction-vorticity formulation and the lattice Boltzmann method, Int. J. Quantum Inf.20, 2150039 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Itani, K

    W. Itani, K. R. Sreenivasan, and S. Succi, Quantum algorithm for lattice Boltzmann (QALB) simulation of incompressible flu- ids with a nonlinear collision term, Phys. Fluids36, 017112 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Sanavio and S

    C. Sanavio and S. Succi, Lattice Boltzmann–Carleman quan- tum algorithm and circuit for fluid flows at moderate Reynolds number, A VS Quantum Sci.6, 023802 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Budinski, Quantum algorithm for the advection–diffusion equation simulated with the lattice Boltzmann method, Quantum Inf

    L. Budinski, Quantum algorithm for the advection–diffusion equation simulated with the lattice Boltzmann method, Quantum Inf. Process.20, 57 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    B. Wang, Z. Meng, Y . Zhao, and Y . Yang, Quantum lat- tice Boltzmann method for simulating nonlinear fluid dynamics, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.16568 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and Y . Yu, Quantum simulation of partial differ- ential equations via schrödingerization, Physical Review Letters 133, 230602 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and Y . Yu, Quantum simulation of partial differ- ential equations: Applications and detailed analysis, Phys. Rev. A108, 032603 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Jin and N

    S. Jin and N. Liu, Analog quantum simulation of partial differ- ential equations, Quantum Sci. Technol.9, 035047 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Meng and Y

    Z. Meng and Y . Yang, Quantum computing of fluid dynamics using the hydrodynamic schrödinger equation, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 033182 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Z. Meng, J. Zhong, S. Xu, K. Wang, J. Chen, F. Jin, X. Zhu, Y . Gao, Y . Wu, C. Zhang,et al., Simulating unsteady flows on a superconducting quantum processor, Commun. Phys.7, 349 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Succi, W

    S. Succi, W. Itani, K. Sreenivasan, and R. Steijl, Quantum com- puting for fluids: Where do we stand?, Europhys. Lett.144, 10001 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    J. H. Ferziger and M. Peri ´c,Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics, 3rd ed. (Springer, 2002)

    2002

  43. [51]

    H. K. Versteeg and W. Malalasekera,An Introduction to Com- putational Fluid Dynamics: The Finite Volume Method, 2nd ed. (Pearson Education, 2007)

    2007

  44. [52]

    O. C. Zienkiewicz, R. L. Taylor, and J. Z. Zhu,The Finite El- ement Method: Its Basis and Fundamentals, 6th ed. (Elsevier, 2005)

    2005

  45. [53]

    Kelly, R

    J. Kelly, R. Barends, B. Campbell, Y . Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. G. Fowler, I.-C. Hoi, E. Jeffrey, A. Megrant, J. Mutus, C. Neill, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. Quintana, P. Roushan, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, O...

    2014

  46. [54]

    Aref, Integrable, chaotic, and turbulent vortex motion in two- dimensional flows, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics15, 345 (1983)

    H. Aref, Integrable, chaotic, and turbulent vortex motion in two- dimensional flows, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics15, 345 (1983)

    1983

  47. [55]

    X. Xu, J. Cui, Z. Cui, R. He, Q. Li, X. Li, Y . Lin, J. Liu, W. Liu, J. Lu,et al., Mindspore quantum: a user-friendly, high- performance, and ai-compatible quantum computing framework, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.17248 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    T. D. Ladd, F. Jelezko, C. Laflamme, Y . Nakamura, T. Monz, T. Keyes, and R. Blatt, Quantum computers, Nature , 45 (2010)

    2010

  49. [57]

    Dean and S

    J. Dean and S. Ghemawat, Mapreduce: Simplified data pro- cessing on large clusters, Communications of the ACM51, 107 (2004)

    2004

  50. [58]

    P. W. Shor, Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer, SIAM Journal on Computing26, 1484 (1997)

    1997

  51. [59]

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, Quantum error correc- tion below the surface code threshold, Nature638, 920 (2025)

    2025

  52. [60]

    Aaronson, Shadow tomography of quantum states, SIAM J

    S. Aaronson, Shadow tomography of quantum states, SIAM J. Comput.49, 5 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    N. A. Nemkov, E. O. Kiktenko, I. A. Luchnikov, and A. K. Fedorov, Efficient variational synthesis of quantum circuits with coherent multi-start optimization, Quantum7, 993 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    Simulating fluid vortex interactions on a superconducting quantum processors

    W. Dür, M. Hein, J. I. Cirac, and H.-J. Briegel, Standard forms of noisy quantum operations via depolarization, Phys. Rev. A72, 052326 (2005). Acknowledgement We thank Haohua Wang, Zhen Wang, Hekang Li, Qiu- jiang Guo, and Pengfei Zhang for their contributions to the experimen...

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.