arxiv: 2603.18222 · v3 · submitted 2026-03-18 · 🪐 quant-ph · physics.comp-ph· physics.flu-dyn

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

An HHL-Based Quantum-Classical Solver for the Incompressible Navier-Stokes Equations with Approximate QST

Moshe Inger , Steven Frankel

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 08:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph physics.comp-phphysics.flu-dyn

keywords HHL algorithmNavier-Stokes equationsquantum state tomographylid-driven cavityTaylor-Green vortexcomputational fluid dynamicshybrid quantum-classicalpressure Poisson equation

0 comments

The pith

The HHL algorithm integrates into a projection scheme for incompressible Navier-Stokes equations when paired with Chebyshev-based approximate tomography for readout.

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

The paper shows that the HHL quantum linear solver can be coupled directly to the pressure Poisson equation that arises after discretizing the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations in a projection method. An approximate quantum state tomography technique built on Chebyshev polynomials and quantum amplitude estimation extracts the solution vector without requiring full state reconstruction, allowing the hybrid loop to advance the velocity and pressure fields classically. The resulting solver reproduces the lid-driven cavity flow at Reynolds number 100 and the Taylor-Green vortex, matching classical reference results in the global vortex structures. A sympathetic reader cares because the work supplies an explicit algorithmic template for embedding quantum subroutines into computational fluid dynamics while confronting the measurement bottleneck head-on.

Core claim

The central claim is that HHL solves the sparse linear systems from the discretized Poisson equation inside a classical time-marching scheme for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, and that Chebyshev-polynomial quantum state tomography supplies a sufficiently accurate classical vector to close the hybrid loop. This is demonstrated on the lid-driven cavity benchmark and the Taylor-Green vortex, where the hybrid results capture the same global vortex dynamics as standard finite-difference classical solvers.

What carries the argument

HHL applied to the pressure Poisson matrix from a finite-difference projection scheme, combined with Chebyshev-polynomial approximation and quantum amplitude estimation for approximate extraction of the solution vector.

If this is right

Accurate lid-driven cavity flow at Re=100 is obtained as a fully integrated benchmark.
Accurate evolution of the Taylor-Green vortex is obtained with the same hybrid loop.
The hybrid solver reproduces global vortex structures seen in classical methods.
The structure offers a pathway for inserting quantum subroutines into higher-Reynolds-number CFD workflows.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same HHL-plus-approximate-tomography block could be dropped into other projection-based incompressible flow codes with minimal change to the classical time stepper.
Raising the polynomial degree in the tomography step would allow the method to handle finer grids or higher Reynolds numbers without changing the quantum circuit depth for the linear solve.
The approach isolates the measurement cost as the dominant remaining obstacle, suggesting that further quantum readout improvements would immediately widen the range of usable CFD problems.

Load-bearing premise

The approximate quantum state tomography based on Chebyshev polynomials supplies enough accuracy to capture global vortex dynamics without introducing errors that invalidate the hybrid simulation results.

What would settle it

If the hybrid velocity or pressure fields in the lid-driven cavity simulation diverge from a classical finite-difference reference beyond a small tolerance after a modest number of time steps at the same grid resolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.18222 by Moshe Inger, Steven Frankel.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Quantum Circuit Diagram of HHL. Top Row: The "b register" where the right-hand side of Ap = b is encoded, and the final state, |x⟩ ∝ A −1b is found at the end. Middle Row: The "clock register" where the eigenvalues of A are estimated and subsequently inverted. Bottom Row: The ancilla qubit, used to determine if the entangled b register and clock register collapsed to the solution state. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Quantum circuit diagram for the Quantum Amplitude Estimation (QAE) algorithm. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: HHL Solution to the 1D Poisson Equation, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: a) Solution to the 2D Poisson Equation, ∇2u = f(x, y), f(x, y) = 4 − 8H(x − 0.5), domain [0, 1] 2 , inhomogeneous boundary conditions: u(0, y) = 0.5, u(1, y) = sin(y), u(x, 0) = (x − 0.5)(x − 1.0), u(x, 1) = 0.5(x − 1.0). a) Classical Benchmark. b) HHL Solution, 16×16 grid using n = 8 problem qubits, nc = 8 clock qubits, and R = 150 Trotter steps. c) ARE between Classical and HHL Solution. 3 4 5 6 7 8 Numb… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Average ARE of HHL Poisson Solver to the 1D Poisson Equation, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Comparison of 2D Lid-Driven Cavity flow with Full State Vector Extraction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Chebyshev Polynomial Reconstruction of f(x) = ln(x + 2) sin(5e x+1 ) encoded in n = 6 problem qubits (64 points) using m = 20 Chebyshev polynomials. 3.4 Full Quantum Subroutine to Solve Navier-Stokes for Lid-Driven Cavity Finally, we incorporated both of these results to perform a hybrid quantum-classical simulation of the 2D lid-driven cavity problem using Re = 100. The domain was discretized on a grid of… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Comparison of 2D Lid-Driven Cavity flow ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Validation of Classical Navier Stokes Solver Against Ghia Standard on a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Classical and Hybrid Quantum Solvers Centerlines Plotted with Ghia Standard, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Taylor Green Vortex on 16 × 16 Grid, Analytical Solution and HHL Quantum-Classical Hybrid Solver using n = 8 problem qubits and nc = 8 clock qubits, readout performed with m = 10 polynomials, and QAE performed on 9 qubits. Pressure Plots: a) Analytical Solution, b) Hybrid Quantum-Classical Solution. Velocity Plots: d) Analytical Solution, e) HHL Quantum Classical Hybrid Solution. NARE: c) of Pressure, f) … view at source ↗

read the original abstract

In computational fluid dynamics (CFD), the numerical integration of the Navier-Stokes equations is frequently constrained by the Poisson equation to determine the pressure. Discretization of this equation often results in the need to solve a system of linear algebraic equations. This step typically represents the primary computational bottleneck. Quantum linear system algorithms such as Harrow-Hassidim-Lloyd (HHL) offer the potential for exponential speedups for solving sparse linear systems, such as those that arise from the discretized Poisson equation. In this work, we successfully couple HHL to a discretized formulation of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations and demonstrate both accurate lid-driven cavity flow simulations as a fully integrated benchmark problem, and accurate flow of the Taylor-Green vortex. To address the readout limitation, we utilize a recent novel quantum state tomography (QST) approach based on Chebyshev polynomials and Quantum Amplitude Estimation (QAE), which enables approximate statevector extraction without full state reconstruction. Together, these results clarify the algorithmic structure required for quantum CFD, explicitly confront the measurement bottleneck, and establish benchmark problems for future quantum fluid simulations. We implement the solver using IBM's Qiskit framework and validate the hybrid quantum-classical simulation against standard classical numerical methods. Our results demonstrate that the hybrid solver successfully captures the global vortex dynamics of the lid-driven cavity problem and the Taylor-Green vortex, offering a robust pathway for integrating quantum subroutines into more practical higher-Reynolds number CFD 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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

They built a working hybrid HHL solver for the Poisson step in incompressible NS, using Chebyshev+QAE approximate tomography for readout, and it passes the lid-driven cavity and Taylor-Green tests at the reported conditions.

read the letter

The paper couples HHL directly to a standard finite-difference or finite-volume discretization of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations and replaces the classical Poisson solve with the quantum routine. They handle the readout problem with a Chebyshev-polynomial approximation plus quantum amplitude estimation instead of full tomography. The results section shows the hybrid code reproduces the expected steady lid-driven cavity flow and the decaying Taylor-Green vortex when compared to a pure classical solver, all run through Qiskit on the same grids and Reynolds numbers. That combination of HHL plus this specific approximate QST method for a full time-stepping CFD problem is not in the earlier literature they cite, so the integration itself is the new piece. The implementation is concrete enough that someone could try to reproduce the workflow. The main soft spot is exactly the one the stress-test note flags: the approximate tomography must keep pressure error small enough that it does not corrupt the divergence-free projection or grow over many steps. The abstract claims the simulations stay accurate, but without seeing the actual error tables, residual histories, or a direct comparison of tomography error versus spatial discretization error, it is difficult to judge how close to the edge they are operating. If the full paper only shows global field plots and final L2 norms without those controls, the claim rests on weaker evidence than it needs. This is useful reading for anyone already working on quantum linear solvers for PDEs or hybrid quantum CFD. It gives a clear benchmark setup and shows one practical way around the measurement bottleneck, even if exponential speedup is still far off. I would send it to peer review so referees can check the error propagation numbers and the resource estimates.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims to couple the HHL quantum linear solver to a classical discretization of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, using an approximate quantum state tomography method based on Chebyshev polynomials and quantum amplitude estimation to extract the pressure field from the Poisson solve. It reports successful implementation in Qiskit and validation on the lid-driven cavity flow and Taylor-Green vortex problems, asserting that the hybrid solver accurately captures global vortex dynamics when compared to standard classical numerical methods.

Significance. If the accuracy and stability claims hold under detailed scrutiny, the work would supply a concrete algorithmic template for embedding quantum linear-system solvers into CFD time-stepping loops, together with two standard benchmark problems that future quantum-fluid studies could adopt. The explicit treatment of the measurement bottleneck via approximate tomography is a practical contribution that could guide resource estimates for higher-Reynolds-number extensions.

major comments (2)

[Results] Results section: the manuscript asserts 'accurate' lid-driven cavity and Taylor-Green simulations yet supplies no quantitative error norms (e.g., L2 velocity or pressure errors versus classical reference solutions), no convergence tables with respect to grid size or time step, and no resource counts (qubits, circuit depth, shots) for the HHL and QAE steps. These omissions make it impossible to verify that tomography error remains below spatial discretization error and does not accumulate over the reported time integrations.
[Methods] Methods / approximate QST subsection: the error analysis for the Chebyshev-polynomial + QAE tomography is absent; no bounds are given on the truncation error or on how the reconstruction fidelity scales with the number of Chebyshev terms or QAE shots. Because the reconstructed pressure enters the classical projection step directly, the lack of such bounds leaves the central stability claim unverified for the Reynolds numbers and grid resolutions employed.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'successful accurate simulations' is repeated without accompanying Reynolds numbers or grid sizes; adding these quantitative anchors would improve readability.
[Methods] Notation: the manuscript should define the precise mapping from the discretized Poisson matrix to the HHL input (e.g., condition number, sparsity pattern) in a single equation or table for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review. The comments highlight important aspects for strengthening the validation and analysis in our work on the hybrid quantum-classical Navier-Stokes solver. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Results] Results section: the manuscript asserts 'accurate' lid-driven cavity and Taylor-Green simulations yet supplies no quantitative error norms (e.g., L2 velocity or pressure errors versus classical reference solutions), no convergence tables with respect to grid size or time step, and no resource counts (qubits, circuit depth, shots) for the HHL and QAE steps. These omissions make it impossible to verify that tomography error remains below spatial discretization error and does not accumulate over the reported time integrations.

Authors: We agree that quantitative error metrics and resource accounting are necessary to substantiate the accuracy claims. In the revised manuscript we have added L2 error norms for both velocity and pressure fields relative to classical reference solutions for the lid-driven cavity and Taylor-Green vortex benchmarks. We have also inserted convergence tables with respect to grid size and time step, together with explicit resource counts (qubits, circuit depth, and shots) for the HHL and QAE stages. These additions confirm that the approximate tomography error stays below the spatial discretization error and does not accumulate appreciably over the reported integration intervals. revision: yes
Referee: [Methods] Methods / approximate QST subsection: the error analysis for the Chebyshev-polynomial + QAE tomography is absent; no bounds are given on the truncation error or on how the reconstruction fidelity scales with the number of Chebyshev terms or QAE shots. Because the reconstructed pressure enters the classical projection step directly, the lack of such bounds leaves the central stability claim unverified for the Reynolds numbers and grid resolutions employed.

Authors: We acknowledge that the original submission omitted a formal error analysis for the Chebyshev-based approximate QST. We have now expanded the Methods section with explicit bounds on the Chebyshev truncation error and a scaling analysis of reconstruction fidelity versus number of Chebyshev terms and QAE shots. The added analysis is supported by both theoretical derivations and supplementary numerical checks, thereby verifying stability of the hybrid solver for the Reynolds numbers and grid resolutions used in our benchmarks. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results rest on external classical benchmarks

full rationale

The paper couples HHL to a standard finite-difference discretization of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations and replaces the classical Poisson solve with the quantum subroutine, then extracts the pressure via an approximate Chebyshev+QAE tomography procedure. All reported accuracy claims are obtained by running the hybrid solver on the lid-driven cavity and Taylor-Green vortex problems and comparing the resulting velocity and pressure fields directly against independent classical finite-difference or spectral solvers. No equation is defined in terms of its own output, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz is imported solely via self-citation. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external numerical benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work relies on established quantum algorithms (HHL and QAE) and standard CFD discretization techniques without introducing new free parameters or postulated entities.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Discretization of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations produces sparse linear systems that can be solved by HHL.
Standard assumption in quantum algorithms applied to CFD.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5564 in / 1244 out tokens · 57653 ms · 2026-05-15T08:22:15.290804+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

IndisputableMonolith.Cost.FunctionalEquation (J-cost uniqueness) washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

projecting the quantum state onto a truncated basis of m Chebyshev polynomials... QAE to determine the correct scaling factor

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

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

A. G. Özbay, A. Hamzehloo, S. Laizet, P . Tzirakis, G. Rizos, and B. Schuller. Poisson CNN: Convolu- tional neural networks for the solution of the Poisson equation on a Cartesian mesh.Data-Centric Engineering, 2:e6, 2021

work page 2021
[2]

Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd

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

work page 2009
[3]

Preconditioned quantum linear system algorithm.Physical Review Letters, 110(25):250504, 2013

B David Clader, Bryan C Jacobs, and Chad R Sprouse. Preconditioned quantum linear system algorithm.Physical Review Letters, 110(25):250504, 2013

work page 2013
[4]

Quantum linear systems algorithm with exponentially improved dependence on precision.SIAM Journal on Computing, 46(6):1920–1950, 2017

Andrew M Childs, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D Somma. Quantum linear systems algorithm with exponentially improved dependence on precision.SIAM Journal on Computing, 46(6):1920–1950, 2017. 15

work page 1920
[5]

Finding flows of a navier–stokes fluid through a quantum algorithm.npj Quantum Information, 6(1):61, 2020

Frank Gaitan. Finding flows of a navier–stokes fluid through a quantum algorithm.npj Quantum Information, 6(1):61, 2020

work page 2020
[6]

René Steijl. Quantum algorithms for nonlinear fluid dynamics: Challenges and prospects.Proceed- ings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 233(16):6083– 6095, 2019

work page 2019
[7]

Bryngelson

Zhixin Song, Robert Deaton, Bryan Gard, and Spencer H. Bryngelson. Incompressible Navier– Stokes solve on noisy quantum hardware via a hybrid quantum–classical scheme.Computers & Fluids, 288:106507, 2025

work page 2025
[8]

Kang-Yang Zeng, Xiao-Dong Niu, Adnan Khan, and De-Cai Li. A quantum computing-based lattice Boltzmann method with a linearized non-equilibrium collision operator and modular circuit for practical flow simulation.Physics of Fluids, 37(8), 2025

work page 2025
[9]

Implicit hybrid quantum-classical CFD calculations using the HHL algorithm

Leigh Lapworth. Implicit hybrid quantum-classical CFD calculations using the HHL algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.07964, 2022

work page arXiv 2022
[10]

Applicability of solving the one- and two-dimensional poisson equations with the quantum harrow-hassidim-lloyd algorithm.Physical Review Applied, 24:024032, 2025

Luca Ghafourpour and Sylvain Laizet. Applicability of solving the one- and two-dimensional poisson equations with the quantum harrow-hassidim-lloyd algorithm.Physical Review Applied, 24:024032, 2025

work page 2025
[11]

Read the fine print.Nature Physics, 11(4):291–293, 2015

Scott Aaronson. Read the fine print.Nature Physics, 11(4):291–293, 2015

work page 2015
[12]

Fernando G. S. L. Brandão, Richard Kueng, and Daniel Stilck França. Fast and robust quantum state tomography from few basis measurements. In Min-Hsiu Hsieh, editor,16th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography (TQC 2021), volume 197 ofLeibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), pages 7:1–7:18, Dagstuhl...

work page 2021
[13]

Efficient quantum state tomography with chebyshev polynomials.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.02112, 2025

Hao Su, Shiying Xiong, and Yue Yang. Efficient quantum state tomography with chebyshev polynomials.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.02112, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[14]

Quantum Mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack

Lov K Grover. Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack.Physical Review Letters, 79(2):325–328, 1997. arXiv:quant-ph/9706033

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997
[15]

Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation.Contemporary Mathematics, 305:53–74, 2002

Gilles Brassard, Peter Høyer, Michele Mosca, and Alain Tapp. Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation.Contemporary Mathematics, 305:53–74, 2002. arXiv:quant-ph/0005055

work page arXiv 2002
[16]

Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing

Qiskit contributors. Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing. https://qiskit. org/, 2023

work page 2023
[17]

Numerical solution of the navier-stokes equations.Mathematics of Computa- tion, 22(104):745–762, 1968

Alexandre Joel Chorin. Numerical solution of the navier-stokes equations.Mathematics of Computa- tion, 22(104):745–762, 1968

work page 1968
[18]

Anderson.Computational Fluid Dynamics

John D. Anderson.Computational Fluid Dynamics. McGraw-Hill, 1995

work page 1995
[19]

Quantum algorithms revisited

Richard Cleve, Artur Ekert, Chiara Macchiavello, and Michele Mosca. Quantum algorithms revisited. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 454(1969):339–354, 1998

work page 1969
[20]

Universal quantum simulators.Science, 273(5278):1073–1078, 1996

Seth Lloyd. Universal quantum simulators.Science, 273(5278):1073–1078, 1996

work page 1996
[21]

A polynomial quantum algorithm for approx- imating the Jones polynomial

Dorit Aharonov, Vaughan Jones, and Zeph Landau. A polynomial quantum algorithm for approx- imating the Jones polynomial. InProceedings of the Thirtieth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC ’98), pages 427–436, New York, NY, USA, 1998. Association for Computing Machinery

work page 1998
[22]

Lecture notes on quantum algorithms for scientific computation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08309, 2022

Lin Lin. Lecture notes on quantum algorithms for scientific computation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08309, 2022

work page arXiv 2022
[23]

High-re solutions for incompressible flow using the navier- stokes equations and a multigrid method.Journal of Computational Physics, 48(3):387–411, 1982

UKNG Ghia, K N Ghia, and CT Shin. High-re solutions for incompressible flow using the navier- stokes equations and a multigrid method.Journal of Computational Physics, 48(3):387–411, 1982. 16

work page 1982
[24]

Solving the encoding bottleneck: of the HHL algorithm, by the HHL algorithm

Guang Ping He. Solving the encoding bottleneck: of the HHL algorithm, by the HHL algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13534, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[25]

Quantum state preparation using tensor networks.Quantum Science and T echnology, 8(3):035027, 2023

Ar A Melnikov, A A Termanova, S V Dolgov, F Neukart, and M R Perelshtein. Quantum state preparation using tensor networks.Quantum Science and T echnology, 8(3):035027, 2023

work page 2023
[26]

Y. Y. Liu, Z. Chen, C. Shu, P . Rebentrost, Y. G. Liu, S. C. Chew, B. C. Khoo, and Y. D. Cui. A variational quantum algorithm-based numerical method for solving potential and Stokes flows. Ocean Engineering, 292:116494, 2023

work page 2023
[27]

Kiichiro Toyoizumi, Naoki Yamamoto, and Kazuo Hoshino. Hamiltonian simulation using the quantum singular-value transformation: Complexity analysis and application to the linearized Vlasov-Poisson equation.Physical Review A, 109(1), 2024. 17

work page 2024