pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.09696 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-10 · 🪐 quant-ph

Quantum-accelerated conjugate gradient method via spectral initialization

Shigetora Miyashita , Yoshi-aki Shimada This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 05:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum-accelerated conjugate gradientspectral initializationhybrid quantum-classical solverlinear systemsconjugate gradient method3D Poisson equationfault-tolerant quantum computingcondition number decomposition
0
0 comments X

The pith

A hybrid method uses a fault-tolerant quantum algorithm only to build a spectrally informed starting guess for the classical conjugate gradient solver.

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

The paper proposes the quantum-accelerated conjugate gradient method in which quantum computation supplies an initial vector informed by the spectrum of the matrix. This initial vector lets the subsequent classical CG iteration converge faster than a random or zero start while the quantum device is used for far less work than a full quantum linear solver would require. The approach explicitly splits the condition number so that the quantum part handles only the spectral information needed for the guess and the classical part manages the rest. For the three-dimensional Poisson equation the authors estimate concrete runtimes and resource counts showing regimes of advantage over both pure classical CG and end-to-end quantum solvers. The result is a concrete blueprint for inserting early fault-tolerant quantum hardware into existing high-performance computing workflows rather than replacing them.

Core claim

Under explicit architectural assumptions the QACG method yields a runtime advantage over purely classical approaches while requiring substantially fewer quantum resources than end-to-end quantum linear solvers; the advantage rests on using a fault-tolerant quantum subroutine exclusively to construct a spectrally informed initial guess whose quality controllably decomposes the matrix condition number between quantum and classical components.

What carries the argument

The spectrally informed initial guess constructed by a fault-tolerant quantum algorithm, which is then fed to a classical conjugate gradient iteration so that the condition number can be partitioned between the two parts.

If this is right

  • For matrices whose condition number can be split, the quantum device needs only enough power to extract spectral features rather than to solve the entire system.
  • The same initial-guess strategy can be applied to other classical iterative solvers that benefit from a good starting vector.
  • Early fault-tolerant quantum hardware can be integrated into HPC workflows as an accelerator rather than as a standalone solver.
  • Runtime estimates for the 3D Poisson equation already show concrete parameter regimes in which the hybrid approach is faster than either pure classical or pure quantum methods.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The method suggests a broader design pattern in which quantum subroutines are reserved for the parts of classical algorithms that are hardest to approximate classically.
  • If the spectral initialization can be approximated with shallower circuits, the approach might become viable even before full fault tolerance is reached.
  • Similar hybrid splits could be explored for other matrix problems where the spectrum is easier to access than the full solution.

Load-bearing premise

A fault-tolerant quantum algorithm can produce the required initial guess efficiently and the condition-number decomposition incurs no hidden classical or quantum overhead.

What would settle it

Measure the end-to-end wall-clock time and the number of logical qubits and gates needed to solve the three-dimensional Poisson equation with QACG, with classical CG, and with a full quantum linear solver; the predicted advantage fails if QACG does not finish faster than classical CG or if it uses as many quantum resources as the full quantum solver.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.09696 by Shigetora Miyashita, Yoshi-aki Shimada.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Quantum-accelerated conjugate gradient (QACG) method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Expected runtime for CG, HHL, and QACG applied to the 3D Poisson equation on an integrated quantum–HPC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Estimated logical qubits and gates for HHL and QACG for the 3D Poisson equation with grid sizes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Effect of spectral initialization on CG for the 1D p–n diode Poisson problem. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Quantum circuits used to construct an initial guess via spectral initialization for the 3D Poisson equation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Quantum phase estimation circuit used within HHL. Controlled time-evolution unitaries and an inverse quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Quantum circuit implementing the unitary for the 3D periodic Laplacian. Quantum Fourier transforms and their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Quantum circuit for the 1D Fourier series loader (FSL). The cascaded entangler [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Estimated HHL runtime for the 3D Poisson equation under varying quantum error-correction (QEC) cycle times [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Scaling of the full, quantum, and effective condition numbers for QACG. The full condition number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Spectral initialization reduces the effective condition number and accelerates CG in the p–n diode Poisson problem. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Scaling of parameters in the eigenvalue inversion subroutine as functions of problem size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Solving large-scale linear systems problems is a cornerstone in scientific and industrial computing. Classical iterative solvers face increasing difficulty as the number of unknowns becomes large, while fully quantum linear solvers require fault-tolerant resources that remain far beyond near-term feasibility. Here we propose a quantum-accelerated conjugate gradient (QACG) method in which a fault-tolerant quantum algorithm is used exclusively to construct a spectrally informed initial guess for a classical conjugate gradient (CG) solver. We estimate the total runtime and resource requirements of an integrated quantum-HPC platform for the 3D Poisson equation. A central feature of QACG is the controllable decomposition of the condition number between the quantum and the classical solver, enabling flexible allocation of computational effort. Under explicit architectural assumptions, we identify regimes in which QACG yields a runtime advantage over purely classical approaches while requiring substantially fewer quantum resources than end-to-end quantum linear solvers. These results illustrate a concrete pathway toward the scientific and industrial use of early-stage fault-tolerant quantum computing and point to a integrated paradigm in which quantum devices act as accelerators within high-performance computing workflows.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes the Quantum-accelerated Conjugate Gradient (QACG) method, in which a fault-tolerant quantum algorithm is used exclusively to construct a spectrally informed initial guess for a classical conjugate gradient solver. Runtime and resource estimates are provided for the 3D Poisson equation under explicit architectural assumptions, with a controllable decomposition of the condition number between quantum and classical components. The central claim is that this hybrid approach yields runtime advantages over purely classical CG while requiring substantially fewer quantum resources than end-to-end quantum linear solvers.

Significance. If the overhead bounds and condition-number decomposition hold, the work supplies a concrete, resource-efficient pathway for deploying early fault-tolerant quantum devices as accelerators inside classical HPC workflows for large-scale linear systems, rather than requiring full quantum linear-system solvers.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (Resource Estimates for 3D Poisson): the claimed net runtime advantage rests on the quantum spectral-initialization subroutine having T-count and depth that remain sub-dominant to the classical CG savings; no explicit scaling with κ or concrete circuit-depth bounds are supplied to confirm this for the reported regimes.
  2. [§3.1] §3.1 (Condition-number decomposition): the assertion that the initial-guess fidelity controllably splits κ between quantum and classical parts lacks a quantitative bound or error analysis showing that the reduction in CG iteration count offsets the quantum overhead; without this, the advantage regimes may disappear.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states runtime estimates but does not reference the specific architectural assumptions (e.g., gate-error rates or qubit connectivity) used in §4; adding a one-sentence pointer would improve clarity.
  2. [§3] Notation for the effective condition number after quantum initialization is introduced without an explicit equation linking it to the initial-guess fidelity; a short derivation or reference to Eq. (X) would help.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered the major concerns and revised the manuscript to provide the requested quantitative bounds and analysis. Below we address each point in detail.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (Resource Estimates for 3D Poisson): the claimed net runtime advantage rests on the quantum spectral-initialization subroutine having T-count and depth that remain sub-dominant to the classical CG savings; no explicit scaling with κ or concrete circuit-depth bounds are supplied to confirm this for the reported regimes.

    Authors: We agree that explicit scaling relations are important for validating the claims. In the revised version, we have added detailed derivations in §4 showing the T-count and circuit depth of the spectral initialization subroutine scale as O(κ^{1/2} polylog(κ, 1/ε)) under the assumed fault-tolerant architecture. We include concrete numerical bounds for the 3D Poisson equation parameters, confirming that the quantum overhead is sub-dominant to the classical savings in the identified advantage regimes. These additions strengthen the resource estimates. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3.1] §3.1 (Condition-number decomposition): the assertion that the initial-guess fidelity controllably splits κ between quantum and classical parts lacks a quantitative bound or error analysis showing that the reduction in CG iteration count offsets the quantum overhead; without this, the advantage regimes may disappear.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation. The revised manuscript now includes a quantitative error analysis in §3.1. We derive a bound relating the initial guess fidelity to the achievable reduction in effective condition number, specifically showing that an initial guess with overlap 1-δ reduces the effective κ by a factor depending on δ. We then analyze the CG iteration count scaling as O(sqrt(κ_eff)) and demonstrate that the reduction in iterations more than compensates for the quantum overhead in the regimes of interest for the 3D Poisson problem. This confirms the robustness of the reported runtime advantages. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: proposal rests on external quantum assumptions and classical CG theory

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain uses fault-tolerant quantum algorithms (external) solely to build a spectral initial guess, then hands off to standard classical CG whose convergence depends on the improved guess quality. No equation or step re-derives its own input by construction, fits a parameter to predict a related quantity, or relies on a self-citation chain for the uniqueness or validity of the split condition-number decomposition. The 3D Poisson runtime estimates are presented under explicit architectural assumptions whose validity is left to external verification; they do not reduce to tautological re-labeling of the paper's own fitted quantities. This is the normal, non-circular case of a hybrid proposal whose load-bearing premises lie outside the manuscript.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The proposal rests on the assumption that fault-tolerant quantum hardware can run the required spectral initialization efficiently; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Fault-tolerant quantum computers can implement the spectral initialization algorithm with the stated resource costs
    This assumption underpins the entire runtime comparison and is stated as an explicit architectural premise.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5480 in / 1177 out tokens · 58421 ms · 2026-05-16T05:29:39.119067+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 87 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Define the 1D periodic discrete Laplacian L∈Rn×nby L= 1 h2   2−1 0···0−1 −1 2−1

    Basic properties of the Poisson equation Definition 2(Discrete Laplacian with periodic boundary conditions).LetΩ = (0,1)and discretize on a uniform grid with spacingh= 1/nand grid pointsx j =jhforj= 0,1,...,n−1. Define the 1D periodic discrete Laplacian L∈Rn×nby L= 1 h2   2−1 0···0−1 −1 2−1... 0 0−1 2 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... −1 0 0 ... −1 ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    This convention differs from earlier sections of the paper, wherendenotes the number of unknowns per spatial dimension in the discretized Poisson equation

    Space complexity of HHL In this and the following section, we usento denote the number of qubits, such that the system dimension is N= 2 n. This convention differs from earlier sections of the paper, wherendenotes the number of unknowns per spatial dimension in the discretized Poisson equation. When referring to the Poisson problem, the distinction is exp...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Gate complexity of HHL Here we present the resource estimation procedure for our HHL implementation over the Definition 7 gate set. Our approach decomposes HHL into a small number of well-defined circuit blocks, for which explicit gate complexities can be derived: (i) state preparation of the right-hand-side vector using the FSL, (ii) QPE for the unitary ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Lemma 12(Iteration complexity of CG).Consider the Poisson problem in Definition 1 with the sparsity of Lemma 3 and the condition number of Lemma 2

    Conjugate gradient method We begin by estimating the iteration complexity of CG to estimate the runtime on HPC. Lemma 12(Iteration complexity of CG).Consider the Poisson problem in Definition 1 with the sparsity of Lemma 3 and the condition number of Lemma 2. Then, to guarantee a relativeA-norm reduction ∥x−x(k)∥A≤ε∥x−x(0)∥A,(D1) it suffices to perform at...

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    HHL algorithm We state the partially fault-tolerant quantum device model to consider in the rest of the work. Definition 7(STAR architecture model).We define a gate set U={UClifford,RZ},U Clifford ={H,S,CNOT},(D15) and introduce the architecture constants P={d,τ,r},(D16) with d∈Z≥1 (code distance), τ >0 (QEC cycle time), r∈Z≥1 (RUS steps), (D17) with RUS ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    We distinguish two effective condition numbers in QACG

    Quantum-accelerated conjugate gradient method We now estimate the runtime of QACG. We distinguish two effective condition numbers in QACG. Letκbe the spectral condition number ofAon the full space. The quantum initialization uses a spectrally filtered inverse ˜A−1 (Sec. III), which effectively restricts inversion to a low-energy spectral window; we denote...

    work page

  7. [7]

    9, we estimate the expected runtime of HHL for the 3D Poisson equation under different assumptions on the quantum condition numberκ′and the QEC cycle timeτ

    Condition number optimization In Fig. 9, we estimate the expected runtime of HHL for the 3D Poisson equation under different assumptions on the quantum condition numberκ′and the QEC cycle timeτ. The horizontal axis denotes the number of unknowns per spatial dimensionn, while the vertical axis shows the estimated runtime in seconds. The dash-dotted black c...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Numerical simulation of spectral initialization We also provide a systematic numerical verification of the acceleration mechanism by quantifying how the number of eigenvalues retained in the spectral initialization affects the CG iteration count. Using the same notation as in (21), letAbe symmetric positive definite with spectral decomposition A= n∑ i=1 λ...

    work page

  9. [9]

    Parameters used in eigenvalue inversion 210 213 216 219 n 1040 1045 1050 1055 a a 210 213 216 219 n 10−11 10−9 10−7 t b 210 213 216 219 n 1054 1061 1068 1075 c c 210 213 216 219 n 1014 1016 1018 r d 210 213 216 219 n 60 80 100d e 210 213 216 219 n 25 30 35 40 45M f FIG. 12. Scaling of parameters in the eigenvalue inversion subroutine as functions of probl...

    work page

  10. [10]

    Runtime and condition number for the 3D Poisson equation under a 1µs clock-cycle assumption

    Runtime estimation n THPCG THHL TQACG κ κ′ κ′′ 210 2.02 1.69×10 9 7.50×10 2 3.19×10 5 1.02 3.11×10 5 211 3.24×10 1 8.18×10 9 8.34×10 2 1.27×10 6 1.02 1.25×10 6 212 5.18×10 2 3.85×10 10 1.59×10 3 5.10×10 6 1.39 3.66×10 6 213 8.29×10 3 1.83×10 11 7.99×10 3 2.04×10 7 3.82 5.34×10 6 214 1.33×10 5 9.56×10 11 5.17×10 4 8.16×10 7 1.47×10 1 5.55×10 6 215 2.12×10 ...

    work page

  11. [11]

    Number of logical qubits for HHL and QACG under a 1µs clock-cycle assumption

    Logical qubits estimation n HHL qubits QACG qubits 210 1.2×104 2.1×103 211 1.4×104 2.1×103 212 1.5×104 2.2×103 213 1.7×104 2.7×103 214 1.9×104 3.5×103 215 2.1×104 4.6×103 216 2.3×104 5.7×103 217 2.5×104 7.1×103 218 2.7×104 8.6×103 219 3.0×104 1.0×104 220 3.2×104 1.2×104 TABLE IV. Number of logical qubits for HHL and QACG under a 1µs clock-cycle assumption...

    work page

  12. [12]

    Number of logical gates for HHL and QACG under a 1µs clock-cycle assumption

    Logical gates estimation HHL gates QACG gates n H S CNOT RZ H S CNOT RZ 210 1.0×10 13 1.8×10 10 3.5×10 13 3.5×10 13 4.3×10 6 6.5×10 4 1.6×10 7 1.6×10 7 211 4.9×10 13 9.6×10 10 1.7×10 14 1.7×10 14 4.5×10 6 9.3×10 4 1.6×10 7 1.6×10 7 212 2.3×10 14 4.3×10 11 8.0×10 14 8.0×10 14 4.8×10 6 1.0×10 5 1.7×10 7 1.7×10 7 213 1.1×10 15 1.9×10 12 3.8×10 15 3.8×10 15 1...

    work page

  13. [13]

    Richard P. Feynman. Simulating physics with computers.Int. J. Theor. Phys., 21(6):467–488, 1982

    work page 1982

  14. [14]

    Peter W. Shor. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer.SIAM Rev., 41(2):303–332, 1999

    work page 1999

  15. [15]

    Quantum computation and shor’s factoring algorithm.Rev

    Artur Ekert and Richard Jozsa. Quantum computation and shor’s factoring algorithm.Rev. Mod. Phys., 68(3):733–753, 1996

    work page 1996

  16. [16]

    Martinez, Matthias F

    Thomas Monz, Daniel Nigg, Esteban A. Martinez, Matthias F. Brandl, Philipp Schindler, Richard Rines, Shannon X. Wang, Isaac L. Chuang, and Rainer Blatt. Realization of a scalable shor algorithm.Science, 351(6277):1068–1070, 2016

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    Lov K. Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. InProceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 212–219. ACM, 1996

    work page 1996

  18. [18]

    Implementing grover’s algorithm on the ibm quantum computers

    Aamir Mandviwalla, Keita Ohshiro, and Bo Ji. Implementing grover’s algorithm on the ibm quantum computers. In2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), pages 2531–2537. IEEE, 2018

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    Lidar and Todd A

    Daniel A. Lidar and Todd A. Brun.Quantum Error Correction. Cambridge University Press, 2013

    work page 2013

  20. [20]

    Devitt, William J

    Simon J. Devitt, William J. Munro, and Kae Nemoto. Quantum error correction for beginners.Rep. Prog. Phys., 76(7):076001, 2013. 39

    work page 2013

  21. [21]

    Quantum error correction: an introductory guide.Contemp

    Joschka Roffe. Quantum error correction: an introductory guide.Contemp. Phys., 60(3):226–245, 2019

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    Abanin, Laleh Aghababaie-Beni, Igor Aleiner, Trond I

    Rajeev Acharya, Dmitry A. Abanin, Laleh Aghababaie-Beni, Igor Aleiner, Trond I. Andersen, Markus Ansmann, Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Abraham Asfaw, Nikita Astrakhantsev, Juan Atalaya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Brian Ballard, Joseph C. Bardin, Johannes Bausch, Andreas Bengtsson, Alexander Bilmes, Sam Blackwell, Sergio Boixo, Gina Bortoli, Alexandre Bourassa,...

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond.Quantum, 2:79, 2018

    John Preskill. Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond.Quantum, 2:79, 2018

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    Nakagawa

    Keita Kanno, Masaya Kohda, Ryosuke Imai, Sho Koh, Kosuke Mitarai, Wataru Mizukami, and Yuya O. Nakagawa. Quantum-selected configuration interaction: Classical diagonalization of hamiltonians in subspaces selected by quantum computers, 2023

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Sung, Maika Takita, Minh C

    Javier Robledo-Moreno, Mario Motta, Holger Haas, Ali Javadi-Abhari, Petar Jurcevic, William Kirby, Simon Martiel, Kunal Sharma, Sandeep Sharma, Tomonori Shirakawa, Iskandar Sitdikov, Rong-Yang Sun, Kevin J. Sung, Maika Takita, Minh C. Tran, Seiji Yunoki, and Antonio Mezzacapo. Chemistry beyond the scale of exact diagonalization on a quantum- centric super...

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Iosue, Luke Bertels, Daniel Claudino, Bryce Fuller, Peter Groszkowski, Travis S

    Jeffery Yu, Javier Robledo-Moreno, Joseph T. Iosue, Luke Bertels, Daniel Claudino, Bryce Fuller, Peter Groszkowski, Travis S. Humble, Petar Jurcevic, William Kirby, et al. Quantum-centric algorithm for sample-based krylov diagonalization, 2025

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Theory of fault-tolerant quantum computation.Phys

    Daniel Gottesman. Theory of fault-tolerant quantum computation.Phys. Rev. A, 57(1):127–137, 1998

    work page 1998

  28. [28]

    Peter W. Shor. Fault-tolerant quantum computation. InProceedings of the 37th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 56–65. IEEE, 1996

    work page 1996

  29. [29]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation

    John Preskill. Fault-tolerant quantum computation. InIntroduction to Quantum Computation and Information. World Scientific, 1998

    work page 1998

  30. [30]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant error

    Dorit Aharonov and Michael Ben-Or. Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant error. InProceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 176–188. ACM, 1997

    work page 1997

  31. [31]

    Dreiling, Dan Gresh, Cameron Foltz, Michael Mills, Steven A

    Kentaro Yamamoto, Yuta Kikuchi, David Amaro, Ben Criger, Silas Dilkes, Ciar´ an Ryan-Anderson, Andrew Tranter, Joan M. Dreiling, Dan Gresh, Cameron Foltz, Michael Mills, Steven A. Moses, Peter E. Siegfried, Maxwell D. Urmey, Justin J. Burau, Aaron Hankin, Dominic Lucchetti, John P. Gaebler, Natalie C. Brown, Brian Neyenhuis, and David Mu˜ noz Ramo. Quantu...

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd

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

    work page 2009

  33. [33]

    Mario Motta, Kevin J. Sung, K. Birgitta Whaley, Martin Head-Gordon, and James Shee. Bridging physical intuition and hardware efficiency for correlated electronic states: the local unitary cluster jastrow ansatz for electronic structure.Chem. 40 Sci., 14(40):11213–11227, 2023

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    Jerry M. Chow. Quantum computing requires high-performance software.Science, 387(6736):eadt0019, 2025

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    Partially fault-tolerant quan- tum computing architecture with error-corrected clifford gates and space-time efficient analog rotations.PRX Quantum, 5(1):010337, 2024

    Yutaro Akahoshi, Kazunori Maruyama, Hirotaka Oshima, Shintaro Sato, and Keisuke Fujii. Partially fault-tolerant quan- tum computing architecture with error-corrected clifford gates and space-time efficient analog rotations.PRX Quantum, 5(1):010337, 2024

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    Varsamis, Evangelos Tsipas, Ioannis G

    Konstantinos Rallis, Ioannis Liliopoulos, Georgios D. Varsamis, Evangelos Tsipas, Ioannis G. Karafyllidis, Georgios Ch. Sirakoulis, and Panagiotis Dimitrakis. Interfacing quantum computing systems with high-performance computing systems: An overview, 2025

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    First practical experiences integrating quantum computers with HPC resources: A case study with a 20-qubit superconducting quantum computer, 2025

    Eric Mansfield, Stefan Seegerer, Panu Vesanen, Jorge Echavarria, Burak Mete, Muhammad Nufail Farooqi, and Laura Schulz. First practical experiences integrating quantum computers with HPC resources: A case study with a 20-qubit superconducting quantum computer, 2025

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Benny Raphael and Ian F. C. Smith.Fundamentals of computer-aided engineering. John Wiley & Sons, 2003

    work page 2003

  39. [39]

    LeVeque.Finite Difference Methods for Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations

    Randall J. LeVeque.Finite Difference Methods for Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2007

    work page 2007

  40. [40]

    Finite volume methods

    Robert Eymard, Thierry Gallou¨ et, and Rapha¨ ele Herbin. Finite volume methods. InHandb. Numer. Anal., volume 7, pages 713–1018. Elsevier, 2000

    work page 2000

  41. [41]

    Finite element method: an overview.Walailak J

    Vishal Jagota, Aman Preet Singh Sethi, and Khushmeet Kumar. Finite element method: an overview.Walailak J. Sci. Technol., 10(1):1–8, 2013

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    Shewchuk

    Jonathan R. Shewchuk. An introduction to the conjugate gradient method without the agonizing pain. Technical report, Carnegie Mellon University, USA, 1994

    work page 1994

  43. [43]

    Do Y. Kwak. V-cycle multigrid for cell-centered finite differences.SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 21(2):552–564, 1999

    work page 1999

  44. [44]

    Multiblock hybrid grid finite volume method to solve flow in irregular geometries

    Masoud Darbandi and Alireza Naderi. Multiblock hybrid grid finite volume method to solve flow in irregular geometries. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 196(1):321–336, 2006

    work page 2006

  45. [45]

    Nastase and Dimitri J

    Cristian R. Nastase and Dimitri J. Mavriplis. High-order discontinuous galerkin methods using an hp-multigrid approach. J. Comput. Phys., 213(1):330–357, 2006

    work page 2006

  46. [46]

    Wesseling

    P. Wesseling. A robust and efficient multigrid method. In W. Hackbusch and U. Trottenberg, editors,Multigrid Methods, pages 614–630, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1982. Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    work page 1982

  47. [47]

    Bank, Todd F

    Randolph E. Bank, Todd F. Dupont, and Harry Yserentant. The hierarchical basis multigrid method.Numer. Math., 52(4):427–458, 1988

    work page 1988

  48. [48]

    Comparison of refinement criteria for structured adaptive mesh refinement.J

    Shengtai Li. Comparison of refinement criteria for structured adaptive mesh refinement.J. Comput. Appl. Math., 233(12):3139–3147, 2010

    work page 2010

  49. [49]

    Issues in adaptive mesh refinement implementation.Electron

    Noureddine Hannoun and Vasilios Alexiades. Issues in adaptive mesh refinement implementation.Electron. J. Differ. Equ., 15:141–151, 2007

    work page 2007

  50. [50]

    A review of mesh adaptation technology applied to computational fluid dynamics.Fluids, 10(5):129, 2025

    Guglielmo Vivarelli, Ning Qin, and Shahrokh Shahpar. A review of mesh adaptation technology applied to computational fluid dynamics.Fluids, 10(5):129, 2025

    work page 2025

  51. [51]

    Quantum linear systems algorithms: a primer, 2018

    Danial Dervovic, Mark Herbster, Peter Mountney, Simone Severini, Na¨ ıri Usher, and Leonard Wossnig. Quantum linear systems algorithms: a primer, 2018

    work page 2018

  52. [52]

    Mauro E. S. Morales, Lirand¨ e Pira, Philipp Schleich, Kelvin Koor, Pedro C. S. Costa, Dong An, Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, Lin Lin, Patrick Rebentrost, and Dominic W. Berry. Quantum linear system solvers: A survey of algorithms and applications, 2025

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    Hybrid quantum linear equation algorithm and its experimental test on ibm quantum experience.Sci

    Yonghae Lee, Jaewoo Joo, and Soojoon Lee. Hybrid quantum linear equation algorithm and its experimental test on ibm quantum experience.Sci. Rep., 9:4778, 2019

    work page 2019

  54. [54]

    Quantum-inspired sublinear classical algorithms for solving low-rank linear systems, 2018

    Nai-Hui Chia, Han-Hsuan Lin, and Chunhao Wang. Quantum-inspired sublinear classical algorithms for solving low-rank linear systems, 2018

    work page 2018

  55. [55]

    A survey on hhl algorithm: From theory to application in quantum machine learning.Phys

    Bojia Duan, Jiabin Yuan, Chao-Hua Yu, Jianbang Huang, and Chang-Yu Hsieh. A survey on hhl algorithm: From theory to application in quantum machine learning.Phys. Lett. A, 384:126595, 2020

    work page 2020

  56. [56]

    Pedro C. S. Costa, Dong An, Yuval R. Sanders, Yuan Su, Ryan Babbush, and Dominic W. Berry. Optimal scaling quantum linear-systems solver via discrete adiabatic theorem.PRX Quantum, 3(4):040303, 2022

    work page 2022

  57. [57]

    B. D. Clader, B. C. Jacobs, and C. R. Sprouse. Preconditioned quantum linear system algorithm.Phys. Rev. Lett., 110(25):250504, 2013

    work page 2013

  58. [58]

    Childs and Nathan Wiebe

    Andrew M. Childs and Nathan Wiebe. Hamiltonian simulation using linear combinations of unitary operations.Quantum Inf. Comput., 12(11–12):901–924, 2012

    work page 2012

  59. [59]

    Explicit quantum circuits for block encodings of certain sparse matrices, 2023

    Daan Camps, Lin Lin, Roel Van Beeumen, and Chao Yang. Explicit quantum circuits for block encodings of certain sparse matrices, 2023

    work page 2023

  60. [60]

    Alper Yildirim and Stephen J

    E. Alper Yildirim and Stephen J. Wright. Warm-start strategies in interior-point methods for linear programming.SIAM J. Optim., 12(3):782–810, 2002

    work page 2002

  61. [61]

    Jordan Ash and Ryan P. Adams. On warm-starting neural network training. InAdv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., volume 33, pages 3884–3894. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020

    work page 2020

  62. [62]

    Egger, Jakub Mareˇ cek, and Stefan Woerner

    Daniel J. Egger, Jakub Mareˇ cek, and Stefan Woerner. Warm-starting quantum optimization.Quantum, 5:479, 2021

    work page 2021

  63. [63]

    LAWS: Look around and warm-start natural gradient descent for quantum neural networks

    Zeyi Tao, Jindi Wu, Qi Xia, and Qun Li. LAWS: Look around and warm-start natural gradient descent for quantum neural networks. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Software (QSW), pages 76–82. IEEE, 2023

    work page 2023

  64. [64]

    Generative flow-based warm start of the variational quantum eigensolver.npj Quantum Inf., 12(1), 2025

    Hang Zou, Martin Rahm, Anton Frisk Kockum, and Simon Olsson. Generative flow-based warm start of the variational quantum eigensolver.npj Quantum Inf., 12(1), 2025

    work page 2025

  65. [65]

    41 Warm-starting and quantum computing: A systematic mapping study.ACM Comput

    Felix Truger, Johanna Barzen, Marvin Bechtold, Martin Beisel, Frank Leymann, Alexander Mandl, and Vladimir Yussupov. 41 Warm-starting and quantum computing: A systematic mapping study.ACM Comput. Surv., 56(9):229, 2024

    work page 2024

  66. [66]

    Childs, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D

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

    work page 1920

  67. [67]

    Extracting a function encoded in amplitudes of a quantum state by tensor network and orthogonal function expansion.Quantum Inf

    Koichi Miyamoto and Hiroshi Ueda. Extracting a function encoded in amplitudes of a quantum state by tensor network and orthogonal function expansion.Quantum Inf. Process., 22(6):239, 2023

    work page 2023

  68. [68]

    Preconditioned multivariate quantum solution extraction, 2026

    Gumaro Rendon and Stepan Smid. Preconditioned multivariate quantum solution extraction, 2026

    work page 2026

  69. [69]

    Exponentially improved constant in quantum solution extraction, 2025

    Gumaro Rendon. Exponentially improved constant in quantum solution extraction, 2025

    work page 2025

  70. [70]

    Fourier space readout method for efficiently recovering functions encoded in quantum states, 2025

    Xinchi Huang, Hirofumi Nishi, Yoshifumi Kawada, Tomofumi Zushi, and Yu-ichiro Matsushita. Fourier space readout method for efficiently recovering functions encoded in quantum states, 2025

    work page 2025

  71. [71]

    Robust simulation of poisson’s equation in a P–N diode down to 1µk, 2022

    Arnout Beckers. Robust simulation of poisson’s equation in a P–N diode down to 1µk, 2022

    work page 2022

  72. [72]

    Quantum simulation of the single-particle schr¨ odinger equation.Am

    Giuliano Benenti and Giuliano Strini. Quantum simulation of the single-particle schr¨ odinger equation.Am. J. Phys., 76(7):657–662, 2008

    work page 2008

  73. [73]

    Childs and Jin-Peng Liu

    Andrew M. Childs and Jin-Peng Liu. Quantum spectral methods for differential equations.Commun. Math. Phys., 375(2):1427–1457, 2020

    work page 2020

  74. [74]

    Watts, Yiyou Chen, Abhijat Sarma, and Peter L

    Mudassir Moosa, Thomas W. Watts, Yiyou Chen, Abhijat Sarma, and Peter L. McMahon. Linear-depth quantum circuits for loading fourier approximations of arbitrary functions.Quantum Sci. Technol., 9(1):015002, 2023

    work page 2023

  75. [75]

    Enhancing the quantum linear systems algorithm using richardson extrapolation.ACM Trans

    Almudena Carrera Vazquez, Ralf Hiptmair, and Stefan Woerner. Enhancing the quantum linear systems algorithm using richardson extrapolation.ACM Trans. Quantum Comput., 3(1):1–37, 2022

    work page 2022

  76. [76]

    Thomas H¨ aner, Martin Roetteler, and Krysta M. Svore. Optimizing quantum circuits for arithmetic, 2018

    work page 2018

  77. [77]

    Robert M. Gray. Toeplitz and circulant matrices: a review.Commun. Inf. Theory, 2(3):155–239, 2005

    work page 2005

  78. [78]

    Reuse-aware compilation for zoned quantum architectures based on neutral atoms, 2024

    Wan-Hsuan Lin, Daniel Bochen Tan, and Jason Cong. Reuse-aware compilation for zoned quantum architectures based on neutral atoms, 2024

    work page 2024

  79. [79]

    Transversal STAR architecture for megaquop-scale quantum simulation with neutral atoms, 2025

    Refaat Ismail, I-Chi Chen, Chen Zhao, Ronen Weiss, Fangli Liu, Hengyun Zhou, Sheng-Tao Wang, Andrew Sornborger, and Milan Kornjaˇ ca. Transversal STAR architecture for megaquop-scale quantum simulation with neutral atoms, 2025

    work page 2025

  80. [80]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang.Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010

    work page 2010

Showing first 80 references.