Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 31 references

A Quantum Algorithm for Solving the Poisson Equation for Free Field Conditions via the Hockney Method

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims the Poisson equation, periodic or free-field, can be solved by a quantum circuit of amplitude encoding, quantum Fourier transforms, and a diagonal-matrix multiplication, with Hockney zero-padding handling free-field cases.

desk verdict New and useful Hockney-QFT combination, but verification is qualitative and the abstract overclaims: needs major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10809 v1 pith:6V7S56KU submitted 2026-08-11 quant-ph

Hans A. Kösel , Roland Ewert , Jan W. Delfs This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P68 PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords quantumalgorithmPoissonequationHockneymethodFouriertransformamplitudeencodinglinearcombinationofunitariesfreefieldboundaryconditionscomputationalfluiddynamics
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 Poisson equation — a ubiquitous step in fluid dynamics and field simulations — can be solved on a quantum computer by transcribing the classical Fourier-domain recipe into a quantum circuit: amplitude-encode the source, apply a multi-dimensional quantum Fourier transform, multiply each frequency component by the Fourier-transformed Green function, transform back, and read the solution from the post-selected ancilla subspace. The free-field, unbounded case is handled through the Hockney method, in which the source is zero-padded to double the computational domain so that the periodic discrete Fourier transform reproduces the infinite-space convolution. Two implementations of the non-unitary multiplication step are constructed and compared: a linear-combination-of-unitaries version and a single-ancilla sequence of multi-controlled rotations. The authors report verification against analytical solutions in one and two dimensions via state-vector simulations, noting in Section IV that the comparison plots were taken as qualitative evidence of correct implementation and that ideal simulations give no information about real-hardware performance. They also find that the LCU variant's success probability is about twice that of the multi-controlled-rotation variant at the cost of many more ancilla qubits, and conclude that the current state-preparation and multiplication circuits prevent a quantum speed advantage over classical FFT-based solvers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Hockney method, a classical construction that converts a free-field Poisson problem into a periodic discrete Fourier transform: the source is assumed to vanish outside $[x_0, x_0+L]$, it is zero-padded to an interval of length $2L$, and the Green function's Fourier transform is evaluated over $[-L, L]$ rather than $[0, L]$. The paper's quantum version of this method is the circuit of Fig. 2: amplitude encoding of the padded source, a multi-dimensional quantum Fourier transform (built from one-dimensional QFT circuits applied to subregisters in parallel), a multiplication by the diagonal matrix whose entries are the Green function's DFT values, the inverse multi-dimensional QFT, and an ancilla measurement that post-selects the valid output subspace. Two concrete implementations of the non-unitary diagonal multiplication are given: the LCU method with preparation and selection gates (needing up to $n$ ancilla qubits and decomposing the diagonal into tensor products of the identity and Pauli-Z), and a single-ancilla sequence of multi-controlled $R_y$ and $R_z$ gates that factors each diagonal entry into an absolute value $|A_{i,i}|$ and a complex phase $e^{i\varphi_i}$. The regularization choices — setting the singular value of the 2D Green function at zero distance to zero, and zeroing the $k=0$ Fourier component so that the computed field has zero spatial mean — are what fix the otherwise free additive constant.

What would settle it

Run the algorithm on a source that is exactly zero outside a compact support strictly inside the domain (so no tails reach the boundary), and compare the post-selected amplitudes against a high-precision numerical evaluation of the infinite-domain convolution integral using the paper's offset convention; if the discrepancy does not shrink toward the discretization error as the grid refines, the claim that the circuit solves the free-field equation fails. A simpler version: repeat the 2D Gaussian test with the domain length $L$ increased to at least ten times the source width so that boundary truncation becomes negligible, and check that the computed field converges to the analytic solution rather than to some offset version of it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a Poisson solver can be built from the same three operations as the classical Fourier method — quantum Fourier transform, pointwise multiplication by the Green function's Fourier transform, and inverse quantum Fourier transform — and that this circuit solves the discretized equation for periodic boundary conditions and, through the Hockney method, for free-field conditions. Concretely, the source is amplitude-encoded, the domain is doubled by adding one qubit per dimension whose zero state implements the zero padding, and the multiplication step is embedded in a unitary by way of ancilla qubits whose measured configuration selects the valid output subspace. The abstract states that functionality is 'verified' by comparing state-vector simulations with analytical solutions; in Section IV the authors qualify this, writing that the plots were taken 'just as a qualitative evidence of the correct implementation' and that ideal-simulation results give no insight into the quantitative performance of a real quantum computer. On the two multiplication variants, the paper reports that the LCU version yields a success probability roughly a factor of two higher than the multi-controlled-rotation version in all tested cases, at the price of up to as many ancilla qubits as there are source qubits, while the one-ancilla version allows higher-resolution simulations and has smaller native-gate counts.

Load-bearing premise

The free-field claim rests on the Hockney assumption that the source is exactly zero outside $[x_0, x_0+L]$, so zero-padding to double length and using the periodic DFT of the Green function over $[-L, L]$ reproduces the infinite-space convolution; for the 2D tests the Gaussian sources still have visible tails at the boundary, and this discrepancy is never quantified in the paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A free-field Poisson problem can be embedded in a quantum circuit with only one extra qubit per spatial dimension, since the Hockney zero-padding is realized simply by the state of the added most-significant qubit.
  • The post-selection success probability converges as the grid is refined for a fixed source distribution, so increasing the resolution does not systematically increase the measurement overhead.
  • The LCU variant gives roughly twice the success probability of the multi-controlled-rotation variant in all tested cases, but needs up to as many ancilla qubits as the source register, whereas the rotation variant needs a single ancilla and permits simulations at higher resolution.
  • As a standalone solver the algorithm offers no quantum runtime advantage: the QFT step alone scales better than a parallelized FFT, but the state-preparation and diagonal-multiplication routines dominate the resource count, and the paper concludes that the multiplication step must be substantially improved.
  • Embedded as a building block in a time-marching CFD solver, the observed low success probabilities would be highly problematic, an obstacle the paper explicitly identifies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive test the paper does not run is a source that is exactly zero at and beyond the domain boundary, so the Hockney assumption holds to machine precision; as run, the 2D Gaussian sources have boundary tails of roughly 15% of the peak, making the comparison with the infinite-domain analytical solution approximate rather than exact.
  • Since the post-selection probabilities converge but remain small (roughly $10^{-2}$ down to $10^{-5}$ in the tested cases), amplitude amplification could in principle turn the conditioned operation into a near-deterministic one; the paper does not explore this route.
  • The circuit skeleton of amplitude encoding, Fourier transform, diagonal multiplication, and inverse transform applies to any translation-invariant linear equation whose Green function is known in Fourier space; the paper names the Helmholtz equation only as a future step, but the construction itself is not restricted to Poisson problems.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 presents a quantum algorithm for solving the Poisson equation with periodic boundary conditions and, via the Hockney method, free-field conditions. The algorithm amplitude-encodes the discretized source, applies a multi-dimensional QFT, multiplies the transformed state by a diagonal matrix containing the Green function or analytical Fourier factors, and applies the inverse QFT. Two implementations of the diagonal multiplication are studied: an LCU construction and a sequence of multi-controlled rotations. The authors report state-vector simulations for one- and two-dimensional test cases, compare the outputs with analytical solutions, and tabulate success probabilities and resource estimates. They conclude that the LCU variant has roughly twice the success probability but needs more ancilla qubits, while the rotation-gate variant is preferable in circuit depth; they also conclude that the current implementations of state preparation and diagonal multiplication prevent an end-to-end quantum runtime advantage.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the paper gives a useful modular construction for solving the Poisson equation in a free-field or periodic setting with amplitude encoding, and it provides an explicit comparison of two diagonal-multiplication subroutines. The derivations of the DFT/Hockney steps, the LCU post-selection formula (36), and the rotation-angle formulas (42)-(43) are standard and appear correct. The resource analysis in Section V, including Table III and the convergence data for success probabilities in Table II, is a concrete contribution that other researchers can build on. However, the algorithmic novelty is incremental: the circuit is a composition of known QFT, state preparation, and diagonal-multiplication techniques, and the paper itself honestly states that the verification is only qualitative and that no quantum runtime advantage is expected from the current implementation. The significance therefore rests on the correctness of the combination and on the reliability of the verification, which the current numerical evidence does not yet fully establish.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Figs. 8-11; abstract] The central claim is that the post-selected inverse-QFT state encodes the discrete Hockney solution, but the verification is only qualitative. The text states that the plots 'were taken here just as a qualitative evidence of the correct implementation', yet the abstract claims functionality is 'verified' by comparison with analytical solutions. No error norms, maximum deviations, or resolution-convergence of the solution field are reported. The paper should quantify the agreement with a discrete reference solution and report error metrics per resolution and per boundary-condition type; otherwise the reader cannot distinguish a correct algorithm from an incorrect one that happens to agree visually.
  2. [Section IV, free-field 2D tests, Fig. 10 upper row and sources (55)-(56)] For the 2D free-field test with source (55), the domain is [x_s-L/2, x_s+L/2] x [-L/2, L/2] with L=1 and sigma=0.3/sqrt(ln2). The Gaussian source has a value exp(-0.25/sigma^2) at the domain boundary, approximately 0.146 of its peak, so the source is not approximately zero outside the original interval. The Hockney padding assumption in Section IIB is therefore violated, and the infinite-domain analytical solution (56) is not the exact quantity the finite-domain Hockney algorithm computes. The comparison should be made against the exact discrete Hockney solution computed with the same padding, the same Green-function regularization, and the same ordering convention; only then can the agreement localize a possible error.
  3. [Section IV, Figs. 9-11 and Table I] The LCU simulations produce imaginary parts of the order 10^-5 in the 1D periodic case and 10^-3 in the 2D free-field cases, although the exact solutions are real. The text attributes these values to 'the respective numerical simulation processes on the classical computer' without giving a mechanism, and the alternative implementation produces imaginary parts three or more orders of magnitude smaller in the same tests. An unexplained, implementation-dependent imaginary component in a real-valued problem is a concrete correctness risk. The authors should either identify and fix the source (for example, an inconsistency in the SparsePauliOp decomposition or in the reordering of the QFT output) or demonstrate that the imaginary part converges to zero with increasing resolution and report quantitative error norms.
  4. [Section IIB, Eq. (25); Section IV comparison procedure] The regularization choices - setting the singular Green-function value to zero and setting the k=0 Fourier component to zero - fix the additive constant of the solution, but the analytical references are not normalized in the same way. The text says a 'mismatching offset was aligned' by considering the real part at the first grid point. This offset procedure should be stated rigorously and verified: the authors should show that the only difference between the computed and analytical fields is an additive constant, or, if higher-order differences exist, quantify them. Otherwise the comparison step itself introduces an uncontrolled degree of freedom.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Captions and text, Section IV] The word 'additative' appears repeatedly (e.g., 'additative constant' in the captions of Figs. 8-11 and in the text around Eq. (50)); it should be 'additive'.
  2. [Section IV, comparison paragraph] The sentence 'a mismatching offset was aligned here via considering just the values of the real part for the first position' is imprecise. The authors presumably subtract a constant determined by that grid point; the procedure should be stated as an explicit formula.
  3. [Section IIIB and Section VC] The text states that the multi-qubit SWAP gates are omitted and that the diagonal matrix entries are reordered to compensate. It would be helpful to specify exactly how the entries of the diagonal matrix and the second QFT are reordered, so that the description is implementable without ambiguity.
  4. [Section VC, SELECT-gate resource estimates] The resource estimates for the LCU SELECT block rely on the observation that only tensor products of identity and sigma_z appear in the Pauli decomposition. This is stated as an empirical observation in Section IV; the authors should state whether this sparsity is guaranteed for the diagonal matrices considered or only holds for the tested examples.
  5. [Section VB, Eq. (62)] The decomposition H = R_x(pi) R_y(-pi/2) holds only up to the global phase i; this is correctly noted in the text, but the displayed equation itself would be clearer if it included the factor i or a note that equality is up to a global phase.
  6. [Table I caption] The caption says the table documents 'the needed qubit numbers and the success probabilities', but the table also lists the resolution of the source domain; the caption should mention all columns.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the quantum circuit is a direct implementation of the classical DFT/Hockney solver and is checked against independent analytic solutions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The algorithm is constructed by composing standard modules: amplitude encoding of the source, a multi-dimensional QFT implementing the DFT, a diagonal multiplication by the DFT of the Green function (or the analytic values -1/k^2), an inverse QFT, and ancilla post-selection. The multiplication circuits are explicitly built so that, conditioned on the ancilla outcome, the effective operation is (1/lambda)A (Eq. 36 for LCU) or the diagonal matrix A (Fig. 7 and Eq. 45 for rotations); the success probabilities (38)/(45) are derived from the circuit action rather than fitted. No parameter of the algorithm is adjusted to the known solutions; the only additive constant in the comparison is the physically arbitrary integration constant of the Poisson equation, which is fixed after the computation by aligning one grid point (Section IV). The free-field Green functions and Hockney padding are standard inputs cited to Hockney/Eastwood and Delfs' lecture notes; these are externally established results, and using them is not circular. The only self-citation, [22], supports an auxiliary estimate of the number of runs needed to read out the amplitude-encoded result (Section V.D); this is not load-bearing for the central claim that the circuit solves the Poisson equation. The paper itself limits the evidence: 'the plots of the real and imaginary parts encoded in the state vector were taken here just as a qualitative evidence of the correct implementation' (Section IV), and the 2D free-field tests use Gaussian sources whose boundary tails are not negligible relative to the Hockney zero-tail assumption, while the LCU imaginary parts (10^-3 in 2D) are attributed to classical simulation without a mechanism. These are verification weaknesses and correctness risks, not circularity. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its inputs by construction, and no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The algorithm introduces no new postulates or fitted constants. The free parameters listed are numerical regularizations and normalization choices. The axioms are standard numerical analysis and domain-specific assumptions of the Hockney method; the ad-hoc assumptions concern only the resource estimates, not the correctness of the circuit.

free parameters (2)
  • Green function singularity regularization value = 0
    Value assigned to G(x-xi) at x=xi for the 2D logarithmic Green function (Eq. 24) to avoid the singularity in the DFT; a standard regularization, not fitted to data.
  • k=0 Fourier component of Green function = 0
    Set to zero (Eq. 25) to fix the additive constant of the solution; a convention, not fitted.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The DFT of a finite sample set represents the Fourier transform for periodic functions, and the Hockney domain doubling computes the free-field convolution.
    Invoked in Section IIB; standard numerical Fourier analysis.
  • domain assumption For free-field problems, the source is assumed to vanish outside the original domain [x0, x0+L] so zero-padding to length 2L is exact.
    Section IIB, paragraph on the Hockney method.
  • domain assumption For periodic BCs, the source must have zero mean (Eq. 17) and the Green function satisfies the modified equation (Eq. 18).
    Section IIA.
  • domain assumption The quantum state is normalized in amplitude encoding, so the solution must be rescaled by the norm of the source vector and lambda or |A|.
    Section IV, first paragraph.
  • ad hoc to paper The resource estimates assume all-to-all qubit connectivity and the gate decompositions of Shende et al. [20].
    Section V, paragraph before Table III.
  • ad hoc to paper The multi-qubit SWAPs in the QFT are omitted and accounted for by reordering the diagonal matrix entries.
    Section VB, paragraph on SWAP-gates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Quantum Algorithm for Solving the Poisson Equation for Free Field Conditions via the Hockney Method." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6V7S56KU

@misc{pith2026260810809,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Quantum Algorithm for Solving the Poisson Equation for Free Field Conditions via the Hockney Method},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6V7S56KU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10809}
}
read the original abstract

For the often encountered problem of the Poisson equation, this work presents a quantum algorithm solving it based on the quantum Fourier transform (QFT) for periodic boundary conditions as well as free field conditions, where the latter is realized via the Hockney method. Besides the QFT and an initialization procedure for amplitude encoding, the algorithm just uses a procedure for multiplying the state vector by a diagonal matrix w.r.t. amplitude encoding. For the latter, two alternative implementations are considered here. The first variant is a version of the LCU method and the second is a sequence of multi-controlled rotation gates that represents a factoring of the multiplied values into absolute values and complex phase factors. The functionality of the algorithm is verified via comparing the results obtained from state vector simulations for one- and two-dimensional test examples with their analytical solutions. For the considered test examples, it is found that the success probability for obtaining the desired ancilla qubit subspace in the LCU version is a factor of around two higher than that for the sequence of multi-controlled rotation gates. However, the LCU version requires a number of ancilla qubits up to the number of qubits that is set to store the discretized source term of the Poisson equation in amplitude encoding, whereas the sequence of multi-controlled rotation gates demands only one ancilla qubit. Computations of the success probabilities for both variants furthermore indicate that the success probability converges for a specific problem with increasing resolution. Concerning the required computational resources for the quantum algorithm, the conclusion is drawn that while the QFT is a more efficient procedure than its classical counterpart, the current implementations of the other necessary steps in the algorithm diminish the efficiency w.r.t. the runtime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10809 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the Hockney method. be used alternatively the analytical values − 1 k 2 instead of the DFT of Gper in spatial representation: As mentioned above, the values of the Green function Gper in spatial representation are given already by an interval of length L w.r.t. a specific dimension x, so that the consideration of the interval for x − ξ in (19) can be restricted just to [− L 2 , L 2 ]. Hence, a DFT of… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Quantum circuit schematics of the module structure of the quantum algorithm. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Equivalence of an initialization procedure for its application to a data field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Quantum circuit pattern of the multi-dimensional QFT according to [9]. It is implemented for a state vector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Quantum circuit pattern of the LCU procedure. There have to be as many ancilla qubits as needed to store [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Quantum circuit schematics of the module structure of the quantum algorithm for the implementation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Quantum circuit pattern that can be used to implement specifically the multiplication of a state vector by a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Simulation results obtained via the first implementation variant for the test examples considered for free field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Simulation results obtained via the first implementation variant for the test example considered for periodic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Simulation results obtained via the first implementation variant for the test examples considered for free [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Simulation results obtained via the second implementation variant for the test examples considered for free [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Quantum circuit pattern of the one-dimensional QFT. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Quantum circuit pattern of the decomposition of the one-dimensional QFT considered here. The lower row [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Gate type considered for the resource estimation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Quantum circuit pattern of the decomposition of a multi-controlled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Simulation results obtained via the second implementation variant for the test examples considered for free [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Simulation results obtained via the second implementation variant for the test example considered for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Simulation results obtained via the second implementation variant for the test examples considered for free [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Linear Combination of Unitary Matrices The multiplication of a state vector by an arbitrary matrix can be implemented by the method calledlinear combination of unitaries[21], abbreviated as LCU. In this method, the first step is to find a decomposition of the considered matrixAin terms of unitary matrices according to A= N−1X κ=0 aκUκ, a κ ∈C, U † κ =U −1...

    work page

  2. [2]

    7 (a), which requires just one ancilla qubit

    Sequence of Multi-controlled Rotation Gates An implementation for realizing specifically the multi- plication of the state vector by a diagonal matrix is given by the circuit pattern shown in Fig. 7 (a), which requires just one ancilla qubit. For this, the diagonal entriesAi,i of the diagonal ma- trixAhave to be given in terms of amplitude and com- plex p...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The solutions were obtained based on the relation (14)

    Calculation of Analytical References In this appendix, calculations of analytical reference solutions of the test examples used for one dimension in section IV are documented. The solutions were obtained based on the relation (14). 27 The solution (50) is obtained via evaluating the inte- gral Z +∞ −∞ e− (ξ−xs )2 σ2 · |ξ−x| 2 dξ(A1) Using Z b a e− (ξ−xs )...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Since the plots for these cases are very similar to correspond- ing cases in section IV they were just included here for completeness

    F urther Simulation Results This appendix contains complementary results for the discussion in section IV that were obtained for the alter- native implementation of the multiplication step. Since the plots for these cases are very similar to correspond- ing cases in section IV they were just included here for completeness. 29 0 2 4 6 8 x 30 20 10 0 10 sou...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Steijl and G

    R. Steijl and G. N. Barakos,Parallel evaluation of quan- tum algorithms for computational fluid dynamics, Com- puters and Fluids173, 22-28 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Steijl,Quantum Algorithms for Fluid Simulations, http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86685 (2019)

    R. Steijl,Quantum Algorithms for Fluid Simulations, http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86685 (2019)

    doi:10.5772/intechopen.86685 2019

  7. [7]

    R. W. Hockney and J. W. Eastwood,Computer Simula- tion Using Particles(Taylor & Francis, 1988)

    work page 1988

  8. [8]

    N. Hu, N. Reiche, and R. Ewert,Simulation of turbu- lent boundary layer wall pressure fluctuations via Poisson equation and synthetic turbulence, J. Fluid Mech.826, 421-454 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Delfs,Basics of Aeroacoustics(lecture notes, 2023)

    J. Delfs,Basics of Aeroacoustics(lecture notes, 2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    S. Wang, Z. Wang, W. Li, L. Fan, Z. Wei, and Y. Gu, Quantum fast Poisson solver: The algorithm and com- plete and modular circuit design, Quantum Inf. Process. 19, 170 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Succi, W

    S. Succi, W. Itani, K. Sreenivasan, and R. Steijl,Quan- tum computing for fluids: Where do we stand?, EPL144, 10001 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computa- tion and Quantum Information(10th anniversary edi- tion, Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    Pfeffer,Multidimensional Quantum Fourier Transfor- mation, arXiv:2301.13835v1 [quant-ph] (2023)

    P. Pfeffer,Multidimensional Quantum Fourier Transfor- mation, arXiv:2301.13835v1 [quant-ph] (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Y. Cao, A. Papageorgiou, I. Petras, J. Traub, and S. Kais,Quantum algorithm and circuit design solving the Poisson equation, New J. Phys.15, 013021 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd,Quantum Algorithm for Linear Systems of Equations, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 150502 (2009)

    2009

  8. [16]

    Mandelt Buxadé, S

    M. Mandelt Buxadé, S. Langer, and P. Bekemeyer,Solv- ing Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations via a Hybrid Newton Method Using Quantum Linear System Solver, 30 0 2 4 6 8 x 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 source field analytic sample points 0 2 4 6 8 x 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 r...

    2026

  9. [17]

    L. Budinski,Quantum algorithm for the Navier Stokes equations by using the streamfunction vortic- ity formulation and the lattice Boltzmann method, arXiv:2103.03804v2 [quant-ph] (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    P. Over, S. Bengoechea, P. Brearley, S. Laizet, and T. Rung,Quantum algorithm for the advection-diffusion equation by direct block encoding of the time-marching operator, Phys. Rev. A112, L010401 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Bengoechea, P

    S. Bengoechea, P. Over, and T. Rung,Quantum Time- Marching Algorithms for Solving Linear Transport Prob- lems Including Boundary Conditions, International Jour- nal for Numerical Methods in Engineering127, No. 8, e70326 (2026)

    2026

  12. [20]

    R. Steijl,Quantum CFD Approaches(lecture notes of the lecture courseIntroduction to Quantum Computing in Fluid Dynamics (STO-AVT-377), heldatthevonKar- man Institute of Fluid Dynamics, 6 - 10 July 2026)

    2026

  13. [21]

    Dewitte, J

    L. Dewitte, J. Roland, and F. Eulitz,Application of the quantum Fourier transform in a harmonic balance solver for Burgers’ equation, Computers and Fluids295, 106619 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Javadi-Abhari, M

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Na- tion, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gambetta,Quantum computing with Qiskit, arXiv:2405.08810v3 [quant-ph] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    S. L. Marshall,A periodic Green function for calculation of coloumbic lattice potentials, J.Phys.: Condens.Matter 12, 4575–4601 (2000)

    2000

  16. [24]

    V. V. Shende, S. S. Bullock, and I. L. Markov,Syn- thesis of quantum-logic circuits, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Sys- tems25, 6, pp. 1000-1010 (2006)

    2006

  17. [25]

    A. M. Childs and N. Wiebe,Hamiltonian simulation us- ing linear combinations of unitary operations, Quantum Information and Computation12, No. 11 & 12 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    H. A. Kösel, R. Ewert, and J. W. Delfs,Resource Implica- tions of Different Encodings for Quantum Computational Fluid Dynamics, arXiv:2604.05577v1 [quant-ph] (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  19. [27]

    R. B. Griffiths and C.-S. Niu,Semiclassical Fourier Transform for Quantum Computation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3228 (1996)

    1996

  20. [28]

    Bäumer, V

    E. Bäumer, V. Tripathi, A. Seif, D. Lidar, and D. S. Wang,Quantum Fourier Transform Using Dynamic Cir- cuits, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 150602 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Bäumer, V

    Supplemental Material of E. Bäumer, V. Tripathi, A. Seif, D. Lidar, and D. S. Wang,Quantum Fourier Trans- form Using Dynamic Circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 150602 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Koopman and R

    T. Koopman and R. H. Bisseling,Minimizing communication in the multi-dimensional FFT, arXiv:2203.11795v2 [cs.DC] (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Kay,Tutorial on the Quantikz Package, arXiv:1809.03842v7 [quant-ph] (2023)

    A. Kay,Tutorial on the Quantikz Package, arXiv:1809.03842v7 [quant-ph] (2023). 31 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 x 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 y source field 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 x 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 y analytic 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 x 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 y re...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.