Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 52 references

Linearization Scheme of Shallow Water Equations for Quantum Algorithms

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By writing the nonlinear shallow water equations as discrete-velocity Boltzmann equations and truncating a Carleman linearization at order 3, this paper produces a linear system that a quantum computer could in principle invert…

desk verdict Legitimate Carleman–LBM adaptation to the shallow water equations; the linear-regime validation is too thin to support the 'reliably demonstrate' claim, but the issues are addressable. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22345 v1 pith:TRHF327J submitted 2025-06-27 quant-ph physics.comp-ph

Till Appel , Zofia Binczyk , Francesco Conoscenti , Petr Ivashkov , Seyed Ali Hosseini , Ricardo Garcia , Carmen Recio This is my paper
classification quant-phphysics.comp-ph MSC 76B1535Q3581P68
keywords shallowwaterequationsCarlemanlinearizationquantumlinearsystemsolversdiscretevelocityBoltzmannsingularvaluetransformationcomputationalfluiddynamicsD1Q3latticetsunamimodeling
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 the nonlinear shallow water equations can be rewritten as a large but structured linear system of equations, making them accessible to quantum linear-system solvers that are exponentially faster than classical solvers in principle. The route is a Carleman linearization of the discrete-velocity Boltzmann equations, extended from a prior Navier-Stokes scheme, truncated at order 3 under the assumption that water height deviates only slightly from a reference depth. Benchmarks on a one-dimensional D1Q3 lattice reproduce the analytical wave speed $\sqrt{g h_0}$ for small perturbations, and a proof-of-principle quantum singular value transformation solver shows the condition number grows linearly with time steps but stays nearly flat with grid resolution. The practical value is that a class of geophysical flows, such as open-ocean tsunami propagation, enters the range of quantum simulation, with the caveat that data loading and readout costs remain open.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is Carleman linearization, a change of variables $V = (f, f \otimes f, f \otimes f \otimes f, \dots)$ that converts the polynomial nonlinearity of the Boltzmann collision operator into a linear ODE in a higher-dimensional vector space. A D1Q3 lattice, with three discrete velocities $c_i \in \{-1, 0, 1\}$, supplies the discrete-velocity Boltzmann equations whose equilibrium distribution recovers the shallow water equations in the hydrodynamic limit. Truncation at order 3 keeps Carleman variables up to cubic products of the distribution functions, which corresponds to a first-order Taylor approximation $1/h \approx 2-h$; this is the step that restricts validity to small height variations. Forward Euler time stepping turns the linear ODE into a sparse block-bidiagonal matrix $E$, and the resulting linear system $A x = b$ is what a quantum linear-system solver such as quantum singular value transformation would invert. The condition number $\kappa$ of that matrix is the key cost driver, and the paper measures its scaling with timesteps and grid points.

What would settle it

Re-run the step-perturbation benchmark with $\delta h_0 = 0.01 h_0$, four grid points, and four timesteps at Carleman truncation orders 4 and 5; if the measured wave speed deviates from $\sqrt{g h_0}$ by more than the finite-difference discretization error, or if the order-3 results change materially when higher-order Carleman variables are retained, then the order-3 closure is not capturing the discrete-velocity Boltzmann dynamics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that the one-dimensional shallow water equations, despite being nonlinear hyperbolic conservation laws, can be mapped, up to a controlled truncation, to a linear system of ordinary differential equations by first writing them as discrete-velocity Boltzmann equations and then applying Carleman linearization at order 3. Because the equilibrium distribution contains the term $h u^2$, the substitution of statistical moments requires a Taylor expansion of $1/h$; with truncation order 3 only the linear term $2-h$ is retained, which is accurate when $|1-h| \ll 1$. The benchmarks, using a step perturbation in height, recover the propagation speed $v = \sqrt{g h_0}$ predicted by linearized shallow-water analysis, and the associated quantum-singular-value-transformation condition-number studies show no bottleneck in the quantum part of the pipeline. The authors present this as extending the previously developed linearization approach for Navier-Stokes to the shallow water equations and as evidence that such linearization schemes can work beyond a single family of PDEs.

Load-bearing premise

The mapping assumes that truncating the Carleman expansion at order 3, together with the linear approximation $1/h \approx 2-h$, captures the full Boltzmann dynamics for the tested small height variations; the paper quantifies only the Taylor-expansion error, not the error from dropping order-4 and higher Carleman couplings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the mapping is correct, tsunami propagation with wave heights small compared to ocean depth can be phrased as a linear algebra problem, so quantum linear-system solvers become a candidate tool for that class of simulations.
  • The condition-number benchmarks imply that in the tested regime, the cost of quantum singular value transformation grows only linearly with the number of time steps and does not worsen with grid resolution, which is favorable for quantum speedup in the inversion step.
  • The same Carleman-plus-discrete-velocity-Boltzmann pipeline should apply to any conservation law whose discrete-velocity equilibrium is a low-order polynomial in the conserved moments, not only the shallow water equations.
  • Because only a small subset of Carleman variables corresponds to physical height and velocity, readout can be restricted to a few grid points or global observables rather than requiring full state tomography.
  • For larger height variations, the truncation order must be increased, raising the dimension of the Carleman vector exponentially; the paper positions this as a tunable accuracy-versus-cost tradeoff.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The exponential speedup claim concerns the quantum inversion step; the paper itself notes that state preparation and readout can offset the advantage, so an end-to-end speedup for realistic wave problems remains an open question.
  • A direct test of the truncation's validity would be to run the same step-perturbation benchmark at Carleman orders 4 and 5; if the recovered speed changes significantly, the order-3 closure is not the limiting error and the paper's error estimate is incomplete.
  • The near-constant condition number with grid points is unexplained; if it persists at larger resolutions, it would make the approach unusually attractive, but the current data, covering only 3 to 6 grid points, is too sparse to extrapolate.
  • The linearized system could be compared against a standard classical finite-volume shallow water solver at identical resolution to see whether the scheme is competitive classically before quantum hardware is needed.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper adapts a Carleman-linearization linearization scheme, originally developed for the Navier-Stokes equations by Li et al. (Phys. Rev. Research 7, 013036 (2025)), to the one-dimensional shallow water equations. The authors introduce a D1Q3 discrete velocity Boltzmann equilibrium, replace the 1/h nonlinearity by a first-order Taylor polynomial, truncate the resulting Carleman hierarchy at order 3, and convert the resulting ODE into a linear system via forward Euler. They then solve the linear system classically and benchmark it against the analytical small-amplitude wave speed v = sqrt(g h0). They also implement a QSVT-based quantum linear system solver and report scaling of the condition number with timesteps and grid points.

Significance. If the mapping is correct, this would be a useful extension of quantum CFD techniques from the Navier-Stokes equations to shallow water flows and would support the broader program of solving nonlinear fluid PDEs on quantum computers. The paper has several concrete strengths: it provides reproducible code on GitHub, verifies the QSVT polynomial-degree scaling, and compares against an external analytical prediction rather than fitting parameters. However, the load-bearing error analysis is incomplete and the numerical validation exercises only the linear acoustic branch, so the central claim that the scheme 'can reliably demonstrate key features of the SWE' is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV.A.2 and Eq. (14)] The error estimate O(|1-h|^(k-2)) accounts only for the Taylor truncation of 1/h, not for the Carleman closure error. After replacing 1/h by 2-h, the collision operator becomes a polynomial of degree 3 in f; the equation for the third-order Carleman variable V^(3) therefore couples to V^(4) and V^(5) through the F^(2) and F^(3) terms in Eq. (14). Truncating at k=3 discards these couplings. The exponential error bound attributed to Itani and Succi is not specialized to this equilibrium, and its hypotheses are not checked. Consequently, the claim that the Carleman-truncated linear system solves the SWE in the benchmarked regime is unverified.
  2. [§VII.B and Fig. 3] The benchmark measures only the linear acoustic-wave speed v = sqrt(g h0) with a height perturbation δh0 = 0.01 h0. This test is governed by the linear terms of the equation and cannot detect errors in the nonlinear hu^2 coupling. The statement in §VII.B that the scheme 'can reliably demonstrate key features of the SWE' is therefore stronger than the evidence supports. A finite-amplitude test, such as a dam-break profile or a nonlinear wave steepening case, is needed to validate the nonlinear part of the model.
  3. [§V.B, Eq. (33), and §III, Eq. (10)] The initial condition stated as f_eq in Eq. (33) does not equal the equilibrium distribution of Eq. (9) evaluated at the same h and u under the stated D1Q3 weights. Eq. (33) omits the gh/2 and u^2 terms present in Eq. (9), so, unless an unstated low-Froude approximation is intended, the initial state is not the equilibrium of the collision operator. In addition, the weights in Eq. (10) sum to 4/3 rather than 1, contradicting the conservation condition in Eq. (4); presumably the intended D1Q3 weights are (2/3, 1/6, 1/6). Since the collision matrices F^(j) are derived from this equilibrium, this discrepancy is load-bearing and must be resolved.
  4. [§III and §IV.A.3] The recovery of the shallow water equations from the D1Q3 equilibrium with τ = 2ν/gh is asserted without a derivation or a precise reference, and the explicit forms of the matrices F^(1), F^(2), and F^(3) for this lattice are never given. The reader cannot verify that the Carleman collision matrices in Eq. (18) implement the intended equilibrium, nor reproduce the reported benchmarks from the text alone. The explicit F^(j) for D1Q3, or a supplementary derivation, should be provided.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§IV.A.2] The approximation in Eq. (16) requires h to be normalized by a reference depth, but the normalization is never defined; Section VII.A quotes heights in meters, which makes the O(|1-h|) error statement dimensionally ambiguous.
  2. [§VII.A] The description of the relative error as 'the sum of the deviations at each grid point, normalized by the total number of grid points' is unclear; the exact norm used should be specified (e.g., L1, L2, or maximum norm).
  3. [§VII.B] The phrase 'Normal models propagation speeds' in the section title should read 'Normal modes'.
  4. [Fig. 1 and §IV.B] The caption contains the typo 'T imesteps'; also, the symbol Nt is used for the number of timesteps in Section VI but the total number of timesteps is denoted n in Eq. (41), which is confusing.
  5. [§VIII.C and Fig. 5(c)] The statement that κ is 'almost independent of the number of grid points' is based on only 3, 4, 5, and 6 grid points; this is too narrow a range to establish a scaling behavior, and the text appropriately notes the lack of explanation.
  6. [References] The GitHub repository is cited without a version or commit identifier, which complicates reproducibility for the exact plots shown in the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scheme is derived, benchmarked against an external analytical solution, and contains no fitted-input or self-citation circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The central construction applies a standard Carleman linearization to the discrete velocity Boltzmann equations with a known D1Q3 shallow-water equilibrium; no parameter is fitted to the quantities that are later 'predicted.' The validation against the analytical shallow-water wave speed v = sqrt(g h0) is an external benchmark from linear wave theory, not an input to the construction. The Taylor replacement 1/h ≈ 2 - h is explicitly identified as a modeling assumption with a stated validity regime (|1 - h| << 1), rather than a parameter tuned to match output. The QSVT condition-number scalings are checked against published theoretical results, including literature on quantum linear-system solvers, and are not used to define the linearization. The cited Itani-Succi exponential truncation-error result is external support, not a self-citation. The skeptical concern about the Carleman closure error is a substantive correctness/verification issue: the paper quantifies only the Taylor-polynomial truncation error and does not isolate the error from discarding couplings to higher-order Carleman variables. That is a modeling-assumption gap, not a circularity, because the approximation is not defined in terms of the result it is used to produce. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the evidentiary bar can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the LBM recovery of SWE, the Carleman truncation closure, the small-amplitude Taylor expansion, and the existence of efficient quantum encodings; none are fully proven here. There are no fitted physical constants, but the truncation order k=3 is a hand-chosen hyperparameter that controls the accuracy of the entire construction.

free parameters (1)
  • Carleman truncation order k = 3
    Chosen in Section IV A 1 to limit the matrix dimension (3n+9n^2+27n^3); it fixes the Taylor expansion of 1/h to first order, so the scheme only models small height variations. The error bound O(|1-h|^(k-2)) depends on it.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The D1Q3 equilibrium distribution (Eq. 9) with tau = 2 nu / (g h) recovers the 1D SWE in the hydrodynamic limit.
    Stated in Section III without proof; the whole linearization starts from this DVBE.
  • ad hoc to paper 1/h is well approximated by 2 - h for normalized h with |1-h| << 1.
    Section IV A 1; this is the enabling approximation that makes hu^2 = (hu)^2(1/h) polynomial of degree 3.
  • domain assumption Truncating the Carleman hierarchy at order 3 introduces negligible error in the benchmarked regime.
    Section IV A 2; only the Taylor truncation error is quantified, not the dropped couplings of order-3 variables to order 4 and higher.
  • domain assumption Forward Euler discretization is stable and accurate for the chosen timestep and system.
    Section VI; no stability analysis or convergence study is presented.
  • domain assumption Initial states can be represented by the equilibrium distribution f_eq (Eq. 33).
    Section V B; restricts the method to equilibrium-compatible initial data.
  • domain assumption Efficient block encoding of the LSE matrix and state preparation of |b> exist for the constructed system.
    Section VIII D; required for end-to-end speedup, but not constructed or demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Linearization Scheme of Shallow Water Equations for Quantum Algorithms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TRHF327J

@misc{pith2026250622345,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Linearization Scheme of Shallow Water Equations for Quantum Algorithms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TRHF327J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22345}
}
read the original abstract

Computational fluid dynamics lies at the heart of many issues in science and engineering, but solving the associated partial differential equations remains computationally demanding. With the rise of quantum computing, new approaches have emerged to address these challenges. In this work, we investigate the potential of quantum algorithms for solving the shallow water equations, which are, for example, used to model tsunami dynamics. By extending a linearization scheme previously developed in [Phys. Rev. Research 7, 013036 (2025)] for the Navier-Stokes equations, we create a mapping from the nonlinear shallow water equation to a linear system of equations, which, in principle, can be solved exponentially faster on a quantum device than on a classical computer. To validate our approach, we compare its results to an analytical solution and benchmark its dependence on key parameters. Additionally, we implement a quantum linear system solver based on quantum singular value transformation and study its performance in connection to our mapping. Our results demonstrate the potential of applying quantum algorithms to fluid dynamics problems and highlight necessary considerations for future developments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22345 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Sparsity pattern of the matrix after Forward Euler [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Velocity of the propagating wave vs. initial height. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. QSVT approximation of the inverse function. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Scaling of the condition number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Truncation It is important to consider the order of truncation; otherwise, the dimension of the vector V and the Carle- man matrices is potentially infinite to accommodate all permutations of f . The truncation order is, by construc- tion, equal to the maximal order of permutation of f , which comes directly from the maximal exponent on fi due to how this...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Error due to truncation order This subsection also deviates from Ref. [14]. In [17] Itani and Succi prove that the error improves 5 exponentially with the Carlemann truncation order. The calculation of error due to truncation order in terms of the parameters of the system in this paper can be done as explained in the following. In order to properly quanti...

    work page

  3. [3]

    (14): F (1)f + F (2)f [2] + F (3)f [3] +

    Collision matrix The collision matrix is derived by considering the ma- trices F (j) in the following terms from equation Eq. (14): F (1)f + F (2)f [2] + F (3)f [3] + ... (17) By the Carleman method, the collision matrix is of the form: C (k) c =   A11 A12 A13 0 0 . . .0 0 0 0 0 A22 A23 A24 0 . . .0 0 0 0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 0...

    work page

  4. [4]

    (3), the streaming matrix is built by first defining a matrix S such that: Sf = −c · ∇f (20) With x as the partial coordinate, in 1D this is equivalent to Sf =  

    Streaming matrix Considering Eq. (3), the streaming matrix is built by first defining a matrix S such that: Sf = −c · ∇f (20) With x as the partial coordinate, in 1D this is equivalent to Sf =   . . −ci ∂fi ∂x . .   (21) To build the streaming matrix Cs, the matrix S replaces F (1) in Eq. (19), denoting these matrices as Bm m . Only the diagonal...

    work page

  5. [5]

    and the truncation that realizes the Forward Euler approximation [3] to the matrix C(3) ≡ Cand vector of Carleman variables V (3) ≡ Vintroduced in Section IV. We begin with an initial value problem consisting of the result of the collision-streaming step obtained by the Carleman linearization, which is a first-order differential equation based on some ini...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Readout problem A complete description of a quantum state requires full state tomography, which is exponentially hard. How- ever, in cases where one is only interested in a restricted region of space — such as a fixed number of grid points necessary to describe a localized phenomenon, like a wave collision with an object – restricted state tomography may ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    First, the initial quantum state |b⟩ must be prepared efficiently

    Encoding classical data The second crucial assumption concerns encoding classical data, which consists of two main tasks. First, the initial quantum state |b⟩ must be prepared efficiently. In general, preparing an arbitrary n-qubit state forces ei- ther the circuit depth or the number of ancilla qubits to grow exponentially in n [35, 36]. However, for som...

    work page

  8. [8]

    (A2) Then for the degree ( j), we define a vector for all grid points: F (j)(x) = F (j)(x1), ...,F (j)(xN ) T (A3) We further define a replacement transfer matrix for Eq

    Collision matrix (N grid points) For the collision matrix, first define for each tensor degree and each grid point: F (j)(xα) = δ[j] α ⊗ F (i) (A1) with δα = (0, ..., α−th position z}|{ 1 ..., 0)| {z } N elements . (A2) Then for the degree ( j), we define a vector for all grid points: F (j)(x) = F (j)(x1), ...,F (j)(xN ) T (A3) We further define a replace...

    work page

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Streaming matrix (N grid points) To create the N-point streaming matrix we need to construct S. This matrix satisfies the equation: Sϕ(x) = (..., −ci∂fi(xα)/∂x, ...)T (A5) where we use second-order finite differences to approxi- mate the spatial gradient: ∂fi(xα) ∂x = (N − 1) ...

  2. [10]

    Boundary condition matrix The resulting matrix has 3 diagonals with non-zero elements and is as follows: C(3) s = −1 δt ·   0 0 0 0 0 · · ·0 0 0 0 1 0 0 −1 · · ·0 1 0 0 0 −1 0 0 · · ·0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 · · ·0 0 0 . . . 0 0 0 0 0 · · ·0 0 0 0 −1 0 0 0 · · ·0 1 0 0 0...

  3. [11]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information (Cambridge university press, 2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

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

    2009

  5. [13]

    D. W. Berry, High-order quantum algorithm for solving linear differential equations, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical 47, 105301 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, A. Ostrander, and G. Wang, Quantum algorithm for linear differential equations with exponentially improved dependence on precision, Com- munications in Mathematical Physics 356, 1057 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Succi, W

    S. Succi, W. Itani, K. Sreenivasan, and R. Steijl, Quan- tum computing for fluids: Where do we stand?, Euro- physics Letters 144, 10001 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Aaronson, Read the fine print, Nature Physics 11, 291 (2015)

    S. Aaronson, Read the fine print, Nature Physics 11, 291 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    S. S. Bharadwaj and K. R. Sreenivasan, Simulating fluid flows with quantum computing, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.09736 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Yepez, Quantum computation of fluid dynamics, in NASA International Conference on Quantum Computing and Quantum Communications(Springer, 1998) pp

    J. Yepez, Quantum computation of fluid dynamics, in NASA International Conference on Quantum Computing and Quantum Communications(Springer, 1998) pp. 34– 60

    1998

  11. [19]

    Gaitan, Finding flows of a navier–stokes fluid through quantum computing, npj Quantum Information 6, 61 (2020)

    F. Gaitan, Finding flows of a navier–stokes fluid through quantum computing, npj Quantum Information 6, 61 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    F. Gaitan, Finding solutions of the navier-stokes equa- tions through quantum computing—recent progress, a generalization, and next steps forward, Advanced Quan- tum Technologies 4, 2100055 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Meng and Y

    Z. Meng and Y. Yang, Quantum computing of fluid dy- namics using the hydrodynamic schr¨ odinger equation, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033182 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Vadasz, Rendering the navier–stokes equations for a compressible fluid into the schr¨ odinger equation for quan- tum mechanics, Fluids 1 (2016)

    P. Vadasz, Rendering the navier–stokes equations for a compressible fluid into the schr¨ odinger equation for quan- tum mechanics, Fluids 1 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    Syamlal, C

    M. Syamlal, C. Copen, M. Takahashi, and B. Hall, Com- putational fluid dynamics on quantum computers, in AIAA A VIATION FORUM AND ASCEND 2024(2024) p. 3534

    2024

  16. [24]

    X. Li, X. Yin, N. Wiebe, J. Chun, G. K. Schenter, M. S. Cheung, and J. M¨ ulmenst¨ adt, Potential quantum advan- tage for simulation of fluid dynamics, Physical Review Research 7, 013036 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Sanavio and S

    C. Sanavio and S. Succi, Lattice boltzmann–carleman quantum algorithm and circuit for fluid flows at mod- erate reynolds number, A VS Quantum Science 6 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Itani, K

    W. Itani, K. R. Sreenivasan, and S. Succi, Quantum carleman lattice boltzmann simulation of fluids, arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.05762 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Itani and S

    W. Itani and S. Succi, Analysis of carleman linearization of lattice boltzmann, Fluids 7, 24 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Bakker and T

    B. Bakker and T. W. Watts, Quantum carleman lin- earization of the lattice boltzmann equation with bound- ary conditions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.04781 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    E. F. Toro, Computational Algorithms for Shallow Water Equations (Springer, 2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Kinnmark, The Shallow Water Wave Equations: For- mulation, Analysis and Application(Springer, 1986)

    I. Kinnmark, The Shallow Water Wave Equations: For- mulation, Analysis and Application(Springer, 1986)

    1986

  23. [31]

    Salmon, The lattice boltzmann method as a basis for ocean circulation modeling, Journal of Marine Research 57, 503 (1999)

    R. Salmon, The lattice boltzmann method as a basis for ocean circulation modeling, Journal of Marine Research 57, 503 (1999)

    1999

  24. [32]

    P. J. Dellar, Nonhydrodynamic modes and a priori con- struction of shallow water lattice boltzmann equations, Physical Review E 65, 036309 (2002)

    2002

  25. [33]

    Zhou, A lattice boltzmann model for the shallow water equations, Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering 191, 3527 (2002)

    J. Zhou, A lattice boltzmann model for the shallow water equations, Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering 191, 3527 (2002)

    2002

  26. [34]

    van Thang, B

    P. van Thang, B. Chopard, L. Lef` evre, D. A. Ondo, and E. Mendes, Study of the 1d lattice boltzmann shallow water equation and its coupling to build a canal network, Journal of Computational Physics 229, 7373 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    S. A. Hosseini and I. V. Karlin, Lattice boltzmann for non-ideal fluids: Fundamentals and practice, Physics Re- ports 1030, 1 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Lamb, Horace, Hydrodynamics (Cambridge [Eng.], University Press, 1895) p

    S. Lamb, Horace, Hydrodynamics (Cambridge [Eng.], University Press, 1895) p. 632, second edition of the 1879 Treatise on the mathematical theory of the motion of flu- ids

  29. [37]

    Linearization scheme of shallow water equations for quantum algorithms, https://github.com/ petr-ivashkov/quantech-swe-qlss (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Lin, Lecture notes on quantum algorithms for scientific computation (2022), arXiv:2201.08309 [quant-ph]

    L. Lin, Lecture notes on quantum algorithms for scientific computation (2022), arXiv:2201.08309 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    J. M. Martyn, Z. M. Rossi, A. K. Tan, and I. L. Chuang, Grand unification of quantum algorithms, PRX Quan- tum 2, 10.1103/prxquantum.2.040203 (2021)

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    Gily´ en, Y

    A. Gily´ en, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics, in Pro- ceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (ACM, New York, NY, USA,

  33. [41]

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

    2022

  34. [42]

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

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    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 sur- vey of algorithms and applications, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02522 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    A. M. Dalzell, S. McArdle, M. Berta, P. Bienias, C.-F. Chen, A. Gily´ en, C. T. Hann, M. J. Kastoryano, E. T. Khabiboulline, A. Kubica, et al., Quantum algorithms: A survey of applications and end-to-end complexities, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03011 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    X. Sun, G. Tian, S. Yang, P. Yuan, and S. Zhang, Asymp- totically optimal circuit depth for quantum state prepa- ration and general unitary synthesis, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 42, 3301 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Zhang, T

    X.-M. Zhang, T. Li, and X. Yuan, Quantum state preparation with optimal circuit depth: Implementations and applications, Physical Review Letters 129, 230504 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Grover and T

    L. Grover and T. Rudolph, Creating superpositions that correspond to efficiently integrable probability distribu- 14 tions, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0208112 (2002)

    2002 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Kitaev and W

    A. Kitaev and W. A. Webb, Wavefunction prepara- tion and resampling using a quantum computer, arXiv preprint arXiv:0801.0342 (2008)

    2008 arXiv

  41. [49]

    A. G. Rattew, Y. Sun, P. Minssen, and M. Pistoia, The efficient preparation of normal distributions in quantum registers, Quantum 5, 609 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Gonzalez-Conde, T

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

    2024

  43. [51]

    Iaconis, S

    J. Iaconis, S. Johri, and E. Y. Zhu, Quantum state preparation of normal distributions using matrix prod- uct states, npj Quantum Information 10, 15 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Jaques and A

    S. Jaques and A. G. Rattew, Qram: A survey and cri- tique, arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10310 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.