pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.20975 · v1 · pith:46IN2QW7new · submitted 2026-06-18 · 🌀 gr-qc

Solving Einstein Field Equations on a Digital Quantum Computer

Clelia Altomonte , Malcolm Fairbairn This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 15:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc
keywords quantum algorithmEinstein field equationsnumerical relativitySchwarzschild black holequasinormal modesWEBB formalismQiskitdigital quantum computer
0
0 comments X

The pith

A quantum algorithm evolves the Schwarzschild black hole spacetime and extracts its quasinormal modes on digital quantum hardware.

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

The paper develops a proof-of-principle quantum algorithm that discretizes the Einstein field equations in the WEBB tetrad numerical relativity formalism. It tests the method by evolving an unperturbed Schwarzschild solution and then adding perturbations to recover gravitational quasinormal modes. The components are coded in Qiskit and executed both on classical simulators and on physical IBM quantum processors. The work quantifies the gate resources and runtime needed for these steps. A reader would care because it demonstrates one concrete route for bringing quantum computers to the partial differential equations of strong-field gravity.

Core claim

We develop a proof-of-principle quantum algorithm for solving Einstein Field Equations in the Wahlquist-Estabrook-Buchman-Bardeen (WEBB) tetrad Numerical Relativity formalism, and test it by evolving the Schwarzschild Black Hole spacetime in the WEBB Numerical Relativity formalism, perturbing it to obtain gravitational Quasinormal Modes. We program the algorithm components for a gate-based, digital quantum computer using the Qiskit software and run it on classical simulators and physical IBM quantum computers through the UKRI National Quantum Computing Centre (NQCC) Quantum Access program and quantify the computational resources and runtime.

What carries the argument

Gate-based quantum circuits that discretize and time-evolve the partial differential equations of the WEBB tetrad formalism for the spacetime metric components.

If this is right

  • The unperturbed Schwarzschild metric evolves correctly under the quantum circuit implementation of the WEBB equations.
  • Linear perturbations around the black hole produce quasinormal ringing whose frequencies can be read out from the quantum evolution.
  • Resource counts for the circuit supply a concrete baseline for estimating the cost of larger grids or longer evolution times.
  • Hybrid quantum-classical loops become possible in which the quantum device handles the metric evolution while classical post-processing extracts observables.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same circuit structure could be applied to axisymmetric or rotating black hole backgrounds once the WEBB variables are adapted.
  • Error-mitigation layers on present-day hardware might extend the usable evolution time before noise swamps the quasinormal signal.
  • Direct side-by-side runs against classical finite-difference codes would reveal whether the quantum representation offers any precision or stability advantage at fixed grid size.
  • If device coherence improves, the method might eventually reach regimes near horizons where classical adaptive-mesh codes become expensive.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen discretization and quantum evolution must remain faithful to the continuous WEBB equations without prohibitive accumulation of discretization or hardware noise errors over the grid size and evolution time used.

What would settle it

Run the full circuit on IBM quantum hardware for the perturbed Schwarzschild case and check whether the extracted frequencies of the gravitational quasinormal modes agree with the known analytic values to within the expected hardware error bars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.20975 by Clelia Altomonte, Malcolm Fairbairn.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIG. 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_23.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this work, we show how simulations performed on classical computers such as those of Numerical Relativity can be tackled by quantum algorithms for solving systems of partial differential equations. We develop a proof-of-principle quantum algorithm for solving Einstein Field Equations in the Wahlquist-Estabrook-Buchman-Bardeen(WEBB) tetrad Numerical Relativity formalism [1], and test it by evolving the Schwarzschild Black Hole spacetime in the WEBB Numerical Relativity formalism [2], perturbing it to obtain gravitational Quasinormal Modes [3]. We program the algorithm components for a gate-based, digital quantum computer using the Qiskit software [4] and run it on classical simulators and physical IBM quantum computers through the UKRI National Quantum Computing Centre (NQCC) Quantum Access program and quantify the computational resources and runtime.

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

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper claims to develop a proof-of-principle quantum algorithm for solving the Einstein field equations in the Wahlquist-Estabrook-Buchman-Bardeen (WEBB) tetrad numerical relativity formalism. It tests the algorithm by evolving the Schwarzschild black hole spacetime, applying perturbations to extract gravitational quasinormal modes, implements the components in Qiskit, executes them on classical simulators and IBM quantum hardware via the NQCC program, and quantifies the required computational resources and runtime.

Significance. If the central claim were supported by quantitative validation, the work would represent a novel first step toward quantum algorithms for numerical relativity, demonstrating how gate-based quantum computers might address systems of PDEs arising in general relativity. The choice of the WEBB formalism for discretization is a concrete technical decision that could be advantageous for quantum implementation, and the explicit resource quantification is a useful contribution even at the proof-of-principle stage.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and results section] Abstract and results claims: the manuscript states that the algorithm was programmed and run on IBM quantum computers to evolve the Schwarzschild spacetime and obtain quasinormal modes, yet supplies no quantitative accuracy metrics, error analysis, fidelity measures, or comparison to known analytic QNM frequencies. Without these data it is impossible to assess whether the reported evolution reproduces the target physics or is dominated by discretization and hardware noise, which is load-bearing for the central claim of successful testing.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback and for acknowledging the potential novelty of our approach. We address the major comment point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and results section] Abstract and results claims: the manuscript states that the algorithm was programmed and run on IBM quantum computers to evolve the Schwarzschild spacetime and obtain quasinormal modes, yet supplies no quantitative accuracy metrics, error analysis, fidelity measures, or comparison to known analytic QNM frequencies. Without these data it is impossible to assess whether the reported evolution reproduces the target physics or is dominated by discretization and hardware noise, which is load-bearing for the central claim of successful testing.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that quantitative validation is crucial for supporting the claims made in the abstract and results. The current version presents the algorithm development and initial executions as a proof-of-principle, with the hardware component focused on demonstrating implementability rather than precise physics reproduction. To address this, we will revise the manuscript to include fidelity metrics from the simulator runs, an error analysis for the discretization, and a comparison of the obtained QNM frequencies to analytic values. We will also temper the language in the abstract regarding the hardware results to reflect the limitations due to noise, making the scope of the testing clearer. These changes will be incorporated in the revised version. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; new quantum algorithm implementation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper presents a constructive proof-of-principle quantum algorithm for discretizing and evolving the WEBB tetrad PDE system on gate-based hardware, implemented in Qiskit and tested via simulation and IBM runs on the known Schwarzschild background with added perturbations to extract QNMs. No load-bearing step reduces by definition or construction to its own inputs: the algorithm components are specified independently, the test case uses an external known solution rather than a fitted parameter relabeled as prediction, and citations to the WEBB formalism and QNM literature are external references rather than self-citation chains that justify uniqueness or force the result. The derivation chain consists of standard quantum simulation techniques applied to an established NR system and is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the central claim rests on the unstated premise that the chosen discretization maps cleanly onto quantum gates.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5662 in / 1138 out tokens · 31628 ms · 2026-06-26T15:53:17.828837+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

127 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    increase

    Quasinormal modes Quasinormal modes (QNMs) are the resonant frequen- cies of a perturbed black hole[69–71], with frequencies and damping determined solely by the black hole param- eters. The Regge-Wheeler (Φ m ℓ ) and Zerilli (Ψ m ℓ ) func- tions govern the odd and even parity sectors of metric perturbations respectively, and obey □Φm ℓ −V RWΦm ℓ = 0 □Ψm ...

  2. [2]

    Carleman linearisation

  3. [3]

    local linearisation through the Jacobian matrix of S(q)

  4. [4]

    heuristic collision operator; We give more details of each method in the Appendix section B. For this proof-of-principle implementation of the algorithm, we tested the Jacobian and heuristic col- lision operators and checked that they provide similar results (notice figure 15 shows the result obtained from the heuristic collision operator in the Appendix,...

  5. [5]

    The amplitude- encoding relation is given by Uencode =R y (θr)|0⟩ a|r⟩= ( p 1−p r|0⟩a + √pr|1⟩a)|r⟩ (74) where|r⟩=|x 0

    Pointwise lapse encoding This section is about implementing the lapse and shift functions in D0 = 1 α (∂t −β r∂r) (73) A fixed lapse functionα r can be amplitude-encoded in an ancilla qubit through controlledR y(θr) rotations con- ditioned on the spatial grid register. The amplitude- encoding relation is given by Uencode =R y (θr)|0⟩ a|r⟩= ( p 1−p r|0⟩a +...

  6. [6]

    Disentangling the ancilla from the grid register as explained in the next section reduces entanglement-induced mixing effects when tracing out the ancilla and is hence advised

    Condition operations on lapse ancilla qubit Conditioning operations onq a =|1⟩ a now induces an αr-dependent weighting in the reduced dynamics after tracing out or postselecting the ancilla. Disentangling the ancilla from the grid register as explained in the next section reduces entanglement-induced mixing effects when tracing out the ancilla and is henc...

  7. [7]

    To disentangle it, we applyU † encode which amounts to applying the same subroutine as before with negative angles (cf

    Uncomputing the lapse encoding Notice that at this pointq a is still entangled with the grid qubits. To disentangle it, we applyU † encode which amounts to applying the same subroutine as before with negative angles (cf. fig. 10). To code the lapse encoding step in Qiskit, we build the subcircuit shown in fig.10 and then wrap it into an In- struction obje...

  8. [8]

    conditioned on coin1 =|0⟩and coin 1 =|1⟩as it needs to be to all fields equally

    Static shift The subroutine to implement a shiftβ r∂r with a static shift functionβ r is the same as for the lapse, but the derivative∂ r is implemented with either the increase or decrease operator (fig.8) depending on the direction, and controlled as shown in fig.(12), i.e. conditioned on coin1 =|0⟩and coin 1 =|1⟩as it needs to be to all fields equally....

  9. [9]

    Experiment method Once the circuit is defined and the physical backend is selected, the circuit is transformed in a set of instruc- tions for the backend to execute throughtranspiling: this process includes converting high level gates (e.g. Toffoli, custon unitary gates, etc.) into the device’s native gates, mapping logical qubits in the circuit to physic...

  10. [10]

    TheV-chainmethod uses a singly controlled V gate (such thatV 2 =U) and CNOT gates, which are recursively applied to different controls, creating a chain of intermediate controls

    Operations decomposition: advection Multiply controlled gates such as those in the ad- vection and lapse encoding steps can be synthesised in different ways with different resulting runtimes. TheV-chainmethod uses a singly controlled V gate (such thatV 2 =U) and CNOT gates, which are recursively applied to different controls, creating a chain of intermedi...

  11. [11]

    as a se- quence of controlledR y rotations arranged in a multi- plexed structure

    Operations decomposition: lapse encoding The lapse encoding/decoding step has the structure of auniformly controlled rotation (UCRY), i.e. as a se- quence of controlledR y rotations arranged in a multi- plexed structure. UCRY (θ0, . . . , θ2k−1) = 2k−1X i=0 |i⟩⟨i| ⊗R y (θi) (77) This belongs to the more general category of aquan- tum multiplexer, which ca...

  12. [12]

    (81) where the coefficientsc j are real numbers,P j is a tensor product of Pauli matrices (e.g.,I, X, Y, Z) which forms a complete operator basis

    Operations decomposition: collision operator A Hamiltonian acting onnqubits can bePauli- decomposedas H= MX j=1 cjPj = X j cj P (1) j ⊗P (2) j ⊗ · · · ⊗P (n) j . (81) where the coefficientsc j are real numbers,P j is a tensor product of Pauli matrices (e.g.,I, X, Y, Z) which forms a complete operator basis. While the computational cost for a general dense...

  13. [13]

    Regarding the measurement after each step, we want to measure|ψ⟩in the computational basis

    Measurement and potential bottlenecks Notice that the state-preparation for structured or con- tinuous functions (as is the case here) can be shown to scale asO(poly(n) and not provide a dramatic increasing in the runtime. Regarding the measurement after each step, we want to measure|ψ⟩in the computational basis. Running the circuitNtimes (”shots”) lets u...

  14. [14]

    This is because the error due to decoding would likely be larger than the error due to not disentangling the ancilla

    Experiments The runs on physical backends in fig.18 can be divided into three groups: •most recent runs: where we used the circuit in fig.(13) without the lapse decoding step. This is because the error due to decoding would likely be larger than the error due to not disentangling the ancilla. We assign the additional ancillas due to the v-chain decomposit...

  15. [15]

    Concepts of Quantum and Spacetime

    Noise and signal extraction We first tried to extract the QNMs frequencies by fit- ting the signals obtained from the unfiltered noisy simula- tions, and then by applying a moving average smoothing method to i) only the space domain, ii) only the time do- main, iii) both space and time domains (cf. fig.??, where to obtain a better signal to noise ratio we...

    2026

  16. [16]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Com- putation and Quantum Information (2012), 10.1017/cbo9780511976667

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511976667 2012

  17. [17]

    Quantum com- plexity vs classical complexity: A survey,

    A. Vaezi, A. Movaghar, M. Ghodsi, S. M. H. Kazemi, N. B. Noghrehy, and S. M. Kazemi, “Quantum com- plexity vs classical complexity: A survey,” (2024), arXiv:2312.14075 [cs.CC]

    arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. van den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Nature618, 500 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms,

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, W.-K. Mok, S. Sim, L.- C. Kwek, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Reviews of Modern Physics94(2022), 10.1103/revmodphys.94.015004

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.94.015004 2022

  20. [20]

    D. E. Deutsch, A. Barenco, and A. Ekert, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences449, 669–677 (1995)

    1995

  21. [21]

    Barenco, C

    A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter, Physical Review A52, 3457–3467 (1995)

    1995

  22. [22]

    Meng and Y

    Z. Meng and Y. Yang, Physical Review Research5 (2023), 10.1103/physrevresearch.5.033182

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.5.033182 2023

  23. [23]

    Lewis, S

    D. Lewis, S. Eidenbenz, B. Nadiga, and Y. Suba¸ sı, Quantum8, 1509 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    Ruiz-Perez and J

    L. Ruiz-Perez and J. C. Garcia-Escartin, Quantum In- formation Processing16(2017), 10.1007/s11128-017- 1603-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s11128-017- 2017

  25. [25]

    Op- timizing quantum circuits for arithmetic,

    T. H¨ aner, M. Roetteler, and K. M. Svore, “Op- timizing quantum circuits for arithmetic,” (2018), arXiv:1805.12445 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    Quantum implementation of el- ementary arithmetic operations,

    G. Florio and D. Picca, “Quantum implementation of el- ementary arithmetic operations,” (2004), arXiv:quant- ph/0403048 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2004

  27. [27]

    Reversible addition circuit using one ancillary bit with application to quantum computing,

    P. Kaye, “Reversible addition circuit using one ancillary bit with application to quantum computing,” (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0408173 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  28. [28]

    Vedral, A

    V. Vedral, A. Barenco, and A. Ekert, Physical Review A54, 147–153 (1996)

    1996

  29. [29]

    Takahashi and N

    Y. Takahashi and N. Kunihiro, Quantum Information and Computation5, 440–448 (2005)

    2005

  30. [30]

    Arithmetic circuits for quantum computing: A software library,

    L. Raggi, “Arithmetic circuits for quantum computing: A software library,” (2020)

    2020

  31. [31]

    Addition on a quantum computer,

    T. G. Draper, “Addition on a quantum computer,” (2000), arXiv:quant-ph/0008033 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  32. [32]

    Shor, inProceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science(1994) pp

    P. Shor, inProceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science(1994) pp. 124–134

    1994

  33. [33]

    An approximate fourier transform useful in quantum factoring,

    D. Coppersmith, “An approximate fourier transform useful in quantum factoring,” (2002), arXiv:quant- ph/0201067 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2002

  34. [35]

    Reitzner, D

    D. Reitzner, D. Nagaj, and V. Buˇ zek, Acta Physica Slo- vaca. Reviews and Tutorials61(2011), 10.2478/v10155- 011-0006-6

    work page doi:10.2478/v10155- 2011

  35. [36]

    Fillion-Gourdeau and E

    F. Fillion-Gourdeau and E. Lorin, Numerical Algo- rithms82, 1009–1045 (2018)

    2018

  36. [37]

    Quantum com- putation of fluid dynamics,

    S. S. Bharadwaj and K. R. Sreenivasan, “Quantum com- putation of fluid dynamics,” (2020), arXiv:2007.09147 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  37. [38]

    Y. Cao, A. Papageorgiou, I. Petras, J. Traub, and S. Kais, New Journal of Physics15, 013021 (2013)

    2013

  38. [39]

    A. J. Pool, A. D. Somoza, M. Lubasch, and B. Horstmann, 2022 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (2022), 10.1109/qce53715.2022.00146

    work page doi:10.1109/qce53715.2022.00146 2022

  39. [40]

    Quantum vs. classical algorithms for solving the heat equation,

    N. Linden, A. Montanaro, and C. Shao, “Quantum vs. classical algorithms for solving the heat equation,” (2020), arXiv:2004.06516 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  40. [41]

    D. W. Berry, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical47, 105301 (2014)

    2014

  41. [43]

    Carleman linearization of partial differen- tial equations,

    T. Vaszary, “Carleman linearization of partial differen- tial equations,” (2024), arXiv:2412.00014 [math.GM]

    arXiv 2024

  42. [44]

    A. M. Childs, J.-P. Liu, and A. Ostrander, Quantum 5, 574 (2021)

    2021

  43. [45]

    A theory of quantum differential equation solvers: limitations and fast-forwarding,

    D. An, J.-P. Liu, D. Wang, and Q. Zhao, “A theory of quantum differential equation solvers: limitations and fast-forwarding,” (2023), arXiv:2211.05246 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  44. [46]

    J´ oczik, Z

    S. J´ oczik, Z. Zimbor´ as, T. Majoros, and A. Kiss, Ap- plied Sciences12, 2873 (2022)

    2022

  45. [47]

    Quantum simulation of partial differential equations via schrodingerisation,

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and Y. Yu, “Quantum simulation of partial differential equations via schrodingerisation,” (2022), arXiv:2212.13969 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  46. [48]

    Quantum simulation of par- tial differential equations via schrodingerisation: tech- nical details,

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and Y. Yu, “Quantum simulation of par- tial differential equations via schrodingerisation: tech- nical details,” (2022), arXiv:2212.14703 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  47. [49]

    Demirdjian, D

    R. Demirdjian, D. Gunlycke, C. A. Reynolds, J. D. Doyle, and S. Tafur, Quantum Information Processing 21(2022), 10.1007/s11128-022-03667-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11128-022-03667-7 2022

  48. [50]

    Qade: Solving dif- ferential equations on quantum annealers,

    J. C. Criado and M. Spannowsky, “Qade: Solving dif- ferential equations on quantum annealers,” (2022), arXiv:2204.03657 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  49. [51]

    L. T. Buchman and J. M. Bardeen, Physical Review D 67(2003), 10.1103/physrevd.67.084017

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.67.084017 2003

  50. [52]

    Arnowitt, S

    R. Arnowitt, S. Deser, and C. W. Misner, General Rel- ativity and Gravitation40, 1997–2027 (2008)

    1997

  51. [53]

    T. W. Baumgarte and S. L. Shapiro,Numerical relativ- ity: Solving einstein’s equations on the computer(Cam- bridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  52. [54]

    Alcubierre,Introduction to 3+1 numerical relativity (Oxford University Press, 2008)

    M. Alcubierre,Introduction to 3+1 numerical relativity (Oxford University Press, 2008)

    2008

  53. [55]

    Pretorius, Classical and Quantum Gravity22, 425–451 (2005)

    F. Pretorius, Classical and Quantum Gravity22, 425–451 (2005). 25

    2005

  54. [56]

    Lindblom, M

    L. Lindblom, M. A. Scheel, L. E. Kidder, R. Owen, and O. Rinne, Classical and Quantum Gravity23, S447–S462 (2006)

    2006

  55. [57]

    Solving systems of linear equa- tions: Hhl from a tensor networks perspective,

    A. M. Ali, I. P. Delgado, M. R. Roura, A. M. F. de Lec- eta, and S. V. Romero, “Solving systems of linear equa- tions: Hhl from a tensor networks perspective,” (2026), arXiv:2309.05290 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  56. [59]

    Bernuzzi and D

    S. Bernuzzi and D. Hilditch, Physical Review D81 (2010), 10.1103/physrevd.81.084003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.81.084003 2010

  57. [60]

    Anderson and J

    A. Anderson and J. W. York, Physical Review Letters 82, 4384–4387 (1999)

    1999

  58. [61]

    Newman and R

    E. Newman and R. Penrose, Journal of Mathematical Physics3, 566–578 (1962)

    1962

  59. [64]

    Succi, F

    S. Succi, F. Fillion-Gourdeau, and S. Palpacelli, EPJ Quantum Technology2(2015), 10.1140/epjqt/s40507- 015-0025-1

    work page doi:10.1140/epjqt/s40507- 2015

  60. [65]

    Sbragaglia, R

    M. Sbragaglia, R. Benzi, L. Biferale, S. Succi, K. Sugiyama, and F. Toschi, Phys. Rev. E75, 026702 (2007)

    2007

  61. [66]

    Gabbanelli, G

    S. Gabbanelli, G. Drazer, and J. Koplik, Phys. Rev. E 72, 046312 (2005)

    2005

  62. [67]

    P. J. Ollitrault, A. Miessen, and I. Tavernelli, Accounts of Chemical Research54, 4229–4238 (2021)

    2021

  63. [68]

    Holmes, N

    Z. Holmes, N. J. Coble, A. T. Sornborger, and Y. b. u. Suba¸ s ı, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013105 (2023)

    2023

  64. [69]

    A quantum algo- rithm to solve nonlinear differential equations,

    S. K. Leyton and T. J. Osborne, “A quantum algo- rithm to solve nonlinear differential equations,” (2008), arXiv:0812.4423 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  65. [70]

    Geraldi, S

    A. Geraldi, S. De, A. Laneve, S. Barkhofen, J. Sperling, P. Mataloni, and C. Silberhorn, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 023052 (2021)

    2021

  66. [71]

    Collision Models Can Efficiently Simulate Any Multipartite Markovian Quantum Dynamics

    M. Cattaneo, G. De Chiara, S. Maniscalco, R. Zambrini, and G. L. Giorgi, Physical Review Letters126(2021), 10.1103/physrevlett.126.130403

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.130403 2021

  67. [72]

    An efficient quantum algorithm for the one- dimensional burgers equation,

    J. Yepez, “An efficient quantum algorithm for the one- dimensional burgers equation,” (2002), arXiv:quant- ph/0210092 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2002

  68. [73]

    Mezzacapo, M

    A. Mezzacapo, M. Sanz, L. Lamata, I. L. Egusquiza, S. Succi, and E. Solano, Scientific Reports5(2015), 10.1038/srep13153

    work page doi:10.1038/srep13153 2015

  69. [74]

    Burger, L

    A. Burger, L. C. Kwek, and D. Poletti, Entropy24, 1766 (2022)

    2022

  70. [75]

    He and L.-S

    X. He and L.-S. Luo, Physical Review E56, 6811–6817 (1997)

    1997

  71. [76]

    Succi and R

    S. Succi and R. Benzi, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 69, 327–332 (1993)

    1993

  72. [77]

    B. L. Douglas and J. B. Wang, Physical Review A79 (2009), 10.1103/physreva.79.052335

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.79.052335 2009

  73. [78]

    Fillion-Gourdeau, H

    F. Fillion-Gourdeau, H. J. Herrmann, M. Mendoza, S. Palpacelli, and S. Succi, Physical Review Letters 111(2013), 10.1103/physrevlett.111.160602

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.160602 2013

  74. [79]

    SUZUKI, Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B69, 161–166 (1993)

    M. SUZUKI, Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B69, 161–166 (1993)

    1993

  75. [80]

    Sarbach and M

    O. Sarbach and M. Tiglio, Physical Review D64(2001), 10.1103/physrevd.64.084016

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.64.084016 2001

  76. [81]

    L. T. Buchman and O. C. A. Sarbach, Classical and Quantum Gravity24, S307–S326 (2007)

    2007

  77. [82]

    L. T. Buchman and J. M. Bardeen, Physical Review D 72(2005), 10.1103/physrevd.72.124014

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.72.124014 2005

  78. [83]

    J. M. Nester, Journal of Mathematical Physics33, 910–913 (1992)

    1992

  79. [84]

    Sberna, P

    L. Sberna, P. Bosch, W. E. East, S. R. Green, and L. Lehner, Physical Review D105(2022), 10.1103/physrevd.105.064046

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.064046 2022

  80. [86]

    K. D. Kokkotas and B. G. Schmidt, Living Reviews in Relativity2(1999), 10.12942/lrr-1999-2

    work page doi:10.12942/lrr-1999-2 1999

Showing first 80 references.