Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 113 references

Under idealized assumptions about data access, quantum algorithms could cut the time for representative whole-cell simulation problems from days to seconds.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 05:25 UTC pith:DWO5VWSH

load-bearing objection Useful roadmap with honest caveats, but the RDME speedup is built on a misidentified operator dimension and the headline numbers need revision. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27571 v1 pith:DWO5VWSH submitted 2026-07-30 quant-ph physics.bio-ph

Exploring the use of quantum computing for facilitating spatially and temporally resolved models of a biological cell

Muralikrishnan Gopalakrishnan Meena , Dileep Kishore , Jerry M. Parks , Luke Bertels , Dilipkumar N. Asthagiri , Travis Humble , Thomas L. Beck , Mitchel J. Doktycz This is my paper
classification quant-ph physics.bio-ph MSC 68Q1281P68 PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords whole-cell simulationquantum computingflux balance analysisstochastic simulation algorithmreaction-diffusion master equationquantum linear systems algorithmcomplexity analysismultiscale modeling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This Perspective asks whether quantum computers could make whole-cell simulation—modeling all of a cell's functional systems at once—tractable. It walks through three modeling scales (atomistic chemistry, metabolic networks, spatial reaction-diffusion dynamics) and compares the time complexity of established classical algorithms against quantum alternatives. Its central claim is that for several representative problems—yeast flux-balance analysis, stochastic simulation of E. coli glycolysis, and spatial RDME simulations of an E. coli cell cycle—quantum algorithms could, under specified assumptions, reduce wall-clock times by many orders of magnitude. The paper is explicit that these speedups are prospective: they depend on efficient oracles, sparse and well-conditioned operators, and they omit data-encoding and readout costs, which the paper identifies as a major practical bottleneck. The value of the work is a structured, quantitative map of where quantum computing could plausibly matter for biology and where it likely does not.

Core claim

The paper's central technical contribution is a systematic complexity comparison across the three scales. For constraint-based metabolic models, classical FBA runs in O(N^2.3)–O(N^3), while quantum convex optimization scales as O(√N·poly(s,κ,1/ε)). For stochastic simulation, classical SSA costs O(N) per trajectory and O(1/ε²) samples for convergence, while quantum linear solvers and quantum Monte Carlo/amplitude estimation offer O(log N · s²κ log(1/ε)) solves and O(1/ε) samples. For Markov-chain mixing and rare events, the gap is O(1/δ) to O(1/√δ). Plugging in representative system sizes—10^10 reactions for yeast FBA, 10^6 voxels and 4,000 species for the E. coli RDME—yields estimates such a

What carries the argument

The central objects are the algorithmic kernels and their complexity pairings: QLSA/HHL for linear systems, quantum convex optimization for LP/QP, Grover/QAOA search for combinatorial problems, quantum amplitude estimation for sampling, and quantum walks/Markov chains for mixing. The comparison is carried by asymptotic formulas—O(N^2.3)–O(N^3) vs O(√N) for FBA, O(N) vs O(log N s²κ log(1/ε)) for SSA solves, O(1/ε²) vs O(1/ε) for convergence, and O(1/δ) vs O(1/√δ) for mixing. The logarithmic scalings depend on the oracle-access assumption: that state vectors and sparse system matrices can be loaded into a quantum computer efficiently. Plugging representative sizes into these formulas produces

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a cell's state and the matrices describing its chemistry can be loaded into a quantum computer at a cost that does not grow with system size—that is, that efficient quantum oracles exist and data-encoding and readout overhead can be neglected.

What would settle it

Build the actual quantum circuit (block encoding plus state preparation) for a realistic genome-scale stoichiometric matrix or a cell-scale diffusion operator and count its qubits and gate depth. If that overhead grows roughly linearly with the number of reactions or voxels, or if the condition number grows with system size faster than the O(log N) solve time offsets, the claimed day-to-second wall-clock reductions do not occur at practical problem sizes.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the speedups survive practical data-encoding costs, the natural deployment route is a hybrid quantum–HPC framework in which a quantum processor offloads selected kernels—ground-state energetics, FBA optimization, stochastic sampling, stiff linear solves—only above a complexity threshold.
  • A credible endpoint emerges: fully atomistic, chemically accurate cellular simulation in which forces and rate parameters come from first-principles electronic structure, progressively replacing empirically fitted parameters in network and spatial models.
  • Quantum-accelerated SSA and quantum-walk-based mixing would relieve the two classical bottlenecks of statistical convergence and rare-event sampling in stochastic cellular models.
  • Whole-cell spatial stochastic models, currently intractable even on exascale supercomputers, could become feasible for single-cell-scale simulations if data-encoding overhead is controlled.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's wall-clock estimates are better read as upper bounds on the claimed speedup than as predictions: data-loading and readout costs are omitted, so the true crossover problem size is likely larger than the representative cases quoted.
  • A testable extension suggested by the comparison: construct a full end-to-end QLSA circuit for a stiffness-dominated biological operator and measure state-preparation depth; this would show whether the O(log N) solve time survives at practical N.
  • If efficient block encodings exist for structured biological operators (stoichiometric matrices, diffusion operators), the paper's roadmap converts into an engineering checklist: which kernels to offload, when, and with how many logical qubits.
  • The complexity map also implies a selection rule the paper does not state explicitly: only problems whose classical-to-quantum gap is exponential in system dimension or quadratic in error/mixing are candidates; problems with only polynomial gaps (like the non-spatial ODE case at yeast sizes) show no practical advantage.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This Perspective surveys the potential of quantum computing for three hierarchical levels of whole-cell modeling: atomistic/molecular simulation, metabolic and regulatory network modeling, and spatial whole-cell modeling. For each level it reviews classical methods, proposes candidate quantum algorithms, and presents complexity analyses in the main text and SI that compare classical wall-clock estimates (on a workstation and on Frontier) with idealized quantum estimates. Headline numbers include a yeast FBA reduction from 17 hours to ~10 seconds and an E. coli RDME reduction from ~6 days to ~0.02 seconds. The paper also discusses hybrid quantum-HPC integration and practical challenges including data encoding, conditioning, and readout.

Significance. If the complexity analyses were correct, the paper would provide a valuable roadmap and identify concrete regimes where quantum algorithms could accelerate biological modeling. The survey is broad and up-to-date, with useful tables of algorithms and hardware demonstrations, and the authors are transparent about many idealizations (oracle access, omitted data-loading costs, s=1, κ=1). However, the two headline quantitative claims rest on internal dimension errors in the SI. The qualitative perspective and the general survey of algorithms remain useful, but the specific speedup numbers need substantial revision before they can support the paper's central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [SI C.4, Eq. (S-9); Table S-2] The RDME estimate uses N = R_total × N_voxels = 2.4×10^10 and log N ≈ 11, leading to the 0.02 s headline. The RDME generator acts on probability distributions over chemical configurations, whose dimension is at least (K+1)^(M V) (with K+1 copy-number states per species per voxel). For M=4000, V=10^6, even K=1 gives log2 N ≈ 4×10^9, not 11. Thus the 'single operator application' claim does not justify O(log N) with that N. The same conflation of classical event count with QLSA dimension appears in SI B.3 (N = R × N_r) and in the SSA rows of Tables 3–4. This is an internal misapplication of QLSA complexity, not merely an omitted data-loading cost.
  2. [SI B.1 / Table S-1] The FBA 'system sizes' are inflated. The text lists the actual models as [95, 2712, 4058] reactions but then states totals O(10^5), O(10^9), O(10^10) 'reactions'; these values correspond to the product reactions×metabolites×genes, not to an LP variable dimension. For a flux-balance LP, N is the number of reaction fluxes (plus auxiliary variables), i.e., 2.7×10^3 for iML1515 and 4.1×10^3 for Yeast8. Using product dimensions therefore overstates the classical cost and the quantum advantage. The '17 hr→10 s' yeast FBA claim in Fig. 1 is not based on a representative biological problem as stated.
  3. [Section 3.2.3 / Table S-2] The headline wall-clock estimates set s=1, κ=1. The paper itself notes in §3.2.3 that 'large condition numbers (κ) expected for stiff biological PDEs will further amplify qubit and gate requirements.' Since the QLSA/quantum-walk complexities scale at least quadratically in κ, the speedup numbers in Fig. 1 and Tables S-1/S-2 are in tension with the authors' own characterization of the target systems. A sensitivity analysis (e.g., κ=10, 10^3, 10^6) is needed before these numbers can support the claimed regimes of advantage.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 1] The figure presents '6 days → 0.02 sec' and '17 hr→ 10 sec' without the caveats stated in Table S-2. Add a footnote indicating s=κ=1, oracle access, and no data-loading cost so the headline graphic is not misleading.
  2. [Section 2.3] Typo: 'Careleman linearization' should be 'Carleman linearization'.
  3. [Tables 3–4] The 'Advantage' column labels O(log N) as 'Exponential in N' in several rows. This phrasing is meaningful only if N is the actual matrix dimension, which is the issue raised in the first major comment; once the dimension error is fixed, these annotations need to be revisited.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: quantum speedup estimates derive from external algorithm complexities and stated biological inputs; the paper explicitly disclaims data-encoding costs.

full rationale

The central claim is a complexity comparison, not a fitted prediction. For each representative problem (FBA, SSA/glycolysis, deterministic PDE, RDME), the paper takes biological inputs (reaction counts, voxel counts, propensities, cell volumes) from independent sources such as BioNumbers, iML1515, Yeast8, and StochKit2, and inserts them into quantum-algorithm complexity formulas taken from the external literature (HHL/QLSA [29,30], quantum walks [46,48,70], amplitude estimation [44], quantum convex optimization [64,65]). No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then called a prediction; all quantum runtime numbers are explicitly labeled as idealized (oracle access, s=1, kappa=1, no data-loading costs). The paper's own limitations sections acknowledge that 'Encoding such datasets onto quantum devices can be extremely challenging, potentially limiting the attainable quantum advantage' (Sec. 3.2.1) and that concrete resource estimates remain an open direction (Sec. 3.2.3). These admissions reduce the strength of the claims but are not circularity. The authors' self-citations (e.g., Refs. [36,37,83,85,89,90,109]) are used as pointers to prior hardware demonstrations and algorithmic frameworks, not as the load-bearing justification for the three headline speedups, which rest on externally established complexity results. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior work. The most significant quantitative concern is in SI C.4, where N is taken as R_total x N_voxels and then used as the dimension in 'log N ≈ 11' for QLSA; the RDME generator's state-space dimension is the number of chemical configurations, so this estimate may be internally misapplied. However, that is a correctness/validity risk, not a circular reduction of the prediction to its own inputs by construction, and therefore does not raise the circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the 'QPU accelerator' is an existing architectural concept. The central assumptions are oracle access, ideal sparsity/condition number, and the completeness of biological data, all acknowledged by the authors. The free parameters are inputs to the scaling calculations, not fitted to data.

free parameters (6)
  • Quantum hardware throughput (10.5 kop/s at 16-bit fp) = 10.5 kop/s
    Taken from Hoefler et al. [91] and used for all quantum wall-clock estimates (SI A-C); the comparison of quantum operations to FLOPS is an assumption, not a measured biological benchmark.
  • Ideal sparsity and condition number = s=1, κ=1
    Assumed for QLSA time estimates in SI B.2, B.3, C.2-C.4; real biological Jacobians are not identity-sparse or perfectly conditioned, and the paper itself notes conditioning as a practical challenge (§3.2.1).
  • E. coli glycolysis propensity = a0 = 1e9 events/s
    Used to compute SSA and RDME trajectory costs (SI B.3, C.4); an order-of-magnitude biological input.
  • Single-core SSA throughput = 1e7 events/s
    Used to translate operation counts into wall-clock for classical SSA (SI B.3, C.4); hardware-dependent and not benchmarked in this paper.
  • Voxel size and cell volumes = 10 nm voxels; E. coli 1 µm^3; yeast 42 µm^3
    Spatial discretization choices determine N in the PDE/RDME scaling estimates (SI C.3-C.4); choosing 100 nm voxels would shift the speedup crossover.
  • Quantum sample count for 5% error = 20
    From O(1/ε) amplitude estimation with ε=0.05; ignores constant prefactors that could be large.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Efficient oracles/block encodings exist for biological system matrices at the costs quoted
    QLSA and Hamiltonian-simulation speedups assume oracle access; the paper acknowledges this in Table 3 and §3.2.1, but the wall-clock numbers (e.g., 0.02 s RDME) include no oracle-construction cost.
  • domain assumption Nonlinear biological PDEs can be linearized (Carleman/Koopman) with manageable truncation error
    §2.3 and Table 1 cite Carleman linearization [33] and note that it requires strong dissipation (R≪1); stiff reaction-diffusion systems in cells may violate this condition.
  • domain assumption Quantum measurement can extract needed observables with O(1/ε) samples and no destructive state-preparation overhead
    All QLSA estimates assume expectation-value readout; the paper notes readout constraints in §3.2.1.
  • standard math Classical solver complexity baselines O(N^1.5)–O(N^3) apply to whole-cell systems
    Uses standard numerical linear algebra results [28,72]; the actual constant and preconditioner performance determines where the crossover occurs.
  • domain assumption The biological input data (kinetic parameters, initial conditions, molecular copy numbers) are sufficiently complete
    The abstract states that many governing physical and chemical properties remain incompletely characterized; the roadmap assumes these can be supplied or inferred.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 26427 in / 10465 out tokens · 101459 ms · 2026-08-01T05:25:46.517435+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Whole-cell simulation, modeling all of a cell's functional systems over its life cycle, is an outstanding challenge in computational biology. Even the simplest living cell contains thousands of interacting proteins and metabolites (on the order of trillions of atoms) whose full functional dynamics spans roughly five orders of magnitude in space (nm to $\mu$m) and nearly nineteen in time (fs to hours). Further, many of the governing physical and chemical properties remain incompletely characterized. Simulating such complex systems at fully atomistic resolution over a full cell cycle is computationally intractable on classical architectures, raising a central question: Can quantum computing offer a viable path to whole-cell simulations that integrate molecular- and systems-level complexity? This Perspective examines the potential of quantum computing across three hierarchical scales: atomistic-molecular modeling, metabolic and regulatory networks, and whole-cell spatial modeling. We present a complexity analysis comparing classical and quantum algorithms for representative biological problems, identifying regimes of substantial theoretical speedup under specified algorithmic assumptions. We highlight algorithmic developments designed to leverage both near-term exploratory and fault-tolerant quantum architectures, and discuss practical bottlenecks: data encoding overhead, system conditioning, measurement constraints, and hybrid quantum-HPC integration. Together, these results outline a roadmap for quantum-accelerated whole-cell modeling and the biological insights such multiscale frameworks may eventually enable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27571 by Dileep Kishore, Dilipkumar N. Asthagiri, Jerry M. Parks, Luke Bertels, Mitchel J. Doktycz, Muralikrishnan Gopalakrishnan Meena, Thomas L. Beck, Travis Humble.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Classical and quantum computational methods across scales of whole-cell modeling. A bacterial cell, shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Depiction of a hybrid HPC-Quantum-AI integration framework to enhance various hierarchical components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

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

113 extracted references · 10 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Quantum computing at the frontiers of biological sciences,

    P. S. Emani, J. Warrell, A. Anticevic, S. Bekiranov, M. Gandal, M. J. McConnell, G. Sapiro, A. Aspuru-Guzik, J. T. Baker, M. Bastiani, et al., “Quantum computing at the frontiers of biological sciences,” Nature Methods, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 701–709, 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    Biology begins to tangle with quantum computing,

    V . Marx, “Biology begins to tangle with quantum computing,”Nature Methods, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 715–719, 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    Quantum computing algorithms: getting closer to critical problems in computational biology,

    L. Marchetti, R. Nifosì, P. L. Martelli, E. Da Pozzo, V . Cappello, F. Banterle, M. L. Trincavelli, C. Martini, and M. D’Elia, “Quantum computing algorithms: getting closer to critical problems in computational biology,” Briefings in Bioinformatics, vol. 23, no. 6, p. bbac437, 2022

    2022

  4. [4]

    Perspective on the current state-of-the-art of quantum computing for drug discovery applications,

    N. S. Blunt, J. Camps, O. Crawford, R. Izsák, S. Leontica, A. Mirani, A. E. Moylett, S. A. Scivier, C. Sunder- hauf, P. Schopf, et al., “Perspective on the current state-of-the-art of quantum computing for drug discovery applications,” Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 7001–7023, 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    Biology and medicine in the landscape of quantum advantages,

    B. A. Cordier, N. P. Sawaya, G. G. Guerreschi, and S. K. McWeeney, “Biology and medicine in the landscape of quantum advantages,” Journal of the Royal Society Interface, vol. 19, no. 196, p. 20220541, 2022

    2022

  6. [6]

    Quantum computing for biomedical computational and data sciences: A joint doe-nih roundtable,

    S. McWeeney, T. Perciano, C. Susut, L. Chatterjee, M. Fornari, L. Biven, and C. Siwy, “Quantum computing for biomedical computational and data sciences: A joint doe-nih roundtable,” tech. rep., USDOE Office of Science (SC), Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR . . . , 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Quantum computing in the next-generation computa- tional biology landscape: from protein folding to molecular dynamics,

    S. Pal, M. Bhattacharya, S.-S. Lee, and C. Chakraborty, “Quantum computing in the next-generation computa- tional biology landscape: from protein folding to molecular dynamics,” Molecular biotechnology, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 163–178, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Complexity of life sciences in quantum and ai era,

    A. Pyrkov, A. Aliper, D. Bezrukov, D. Podolskiy, F. Ren, and A. Zhavoronkov, “Complexity of life sciences in quantum and ai era,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science, vol. 14, no. 1, p. e1701, 2024

    2024

  9. [9]

    A community approach to whole-cell modeling,

    J. Singla and K. L. White, “A community approach to whole-cell modeling,” Current Opinion in Systems Biology, vol. 26, pp. 33–38, 2021

    2021

  10. [10]

    Statistical and computational challenges for whole cell modelling,

    M. P. Stumpf, “Statistical and computational challenges for whole cell modelling,”Current Opinion in Systems Biology, vol. 26, pp. 58–63, 2021. 13 Quantum computing for spatially and temporally resolved models of a biological cell

    2021

  11. [11]

    Estimating computational limits on theoretical descriptions of biological cells,

    R. R. Netz and W. A. Eaton, “Estimating computational limits on theoretical descriptions of biological cells,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118, no. 6, p. e2022753118, 2021

    2021

  12. [12]

    Multi-scale models of whole cells: progress and challenges,

    K. Georgouli, J.-S. Yeom, R. C. Blake, and A. Navid, “Multi-scale models of whole cells: progress and challenges,” Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, vol. 11, p. 1260507, 2023

    2023

  13. [13]

    Molecular dynamics simulation of an entire cell,

    J. A. Stevens, F. Grünewald, P. van Tilburg, M. König, B. R. Gilbert, T. A. Brier, Z. R. Thornburg, Z. Luthey- Schulten, and S. J. Marrink, “Molecular dynamics simulation of an entire cell,” Frontiers in Chemistry, vol. 11, p. 1106495, 2023

    2023

  14. [14]

    The variational quantum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices,

    J. Tilly, H. Chen, S. Cao, D. Picozzi, K. Setia, Y . Li, E. Grant, L. Wossnig, I. Rungger, G. H. Booth,et al., “The variational quantum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices,” Physics Reports, vol. 986, pp. 1–128, 2022

    2022

  15. [15]

    Resource-efficient quantum algorithm for protein folding,

    A. Robert, P. K. Barkoutsos, S. Woerner, and I. Tavernelli, “Resource-efficient quantum algorithm for protein folding,” npj Quantum Information, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 38, 2021

    2021

  16. [16]

    Hardware-Efficient Variational Quantum Eigensolver for Small Molecules and Quantum Magnets,

    A. Kandala et al., “Hardware-Efficient Variational Quantum Eigensolver for Small Molecules and Quantum Magnets,” Nature, vol. 549, no. 7671, pp. 242–246, 2017

    2017

  17. [17]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, “A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  18. [18]

    Molecular quantum computations on a protein,

    A. Shajan, D. Kaliakin, F. Liang, T. Pellegrini, H. Doga, S. Bhowmik, S. Das, A. Mezzacapo, M. Motta, and K. M. Merz Jr, “Molecular quantum computations on a protein,” Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 2026

    2026

  19. [19]

    Optimal hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing,

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, “Optimal hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing,” Physical review letters, vol. 118, no. 1, p. 010501, 2017

    2017

  20. [20]

    Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization,

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, “Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization,” Quantum, vol. 3, p. 163, 2019

    2019

  21. [21]

    Boyd and L

    S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex optimization. Cambridge university press, 2004

    2004

  22. [22]

    Numerical optimization,

    J. Nocedal, “Numerical optimization,” Springer Ser. Oper. Res. Financ. Eng./Springer, 2006

    2006

  23. [23]

    Quantum gene regulatory networks,

    C. Roman-Vicharra and J. J. Cai, “Quantum gene regulatory networks,”npj Quantum Information, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 67, 2023

    2023

  24. [24]

    What is flux balance analysis?,

    J. D. Orth, I. Thiele, and B. Ø. Palsson, “What is flux balance analysis?,” Nature biotechnology, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 245–248, 2010

    2010

  25. [25]

    Palsson, Systems biology

    B. Palsson, Systems biology. Cambridge university press, 2015

    2015

  26. [26]

    A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,

    L. K. Grover, “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,” inProceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pp. 212–219, 1996

    1996

  27. [27]

    Identifying protein co-regulatory network logic by solving b-sat problems through gate-based quantum computing,

    A. E. Brisebois, J. Broderick, Z. Khatooni, H. L. Wilson, S. Rayan, and G. Broderick, “Identifying protein co-regulatory network logic by solving b-sat problems through gate-based quantum computing,” in 2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 01, pp. 2270–2278, 2025

    2025

  28. [28]

    L. N. Trefethen and D. Bau, Numerical linear algebra. SIAM, 2022

    2022

  29. [29]

    Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations,

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, “Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations,”Physical review letters, vol. 103, no. 15, p. 150502, 2009

    2009

  30. [30]

    Quantum linear system solvers: A survey of algorithms and applications,

    M. E. Morales, L. Pira, P. Schleich, K. Koor, P. Costa, D. An, A. Aspuru-Guzik, L. Lin, P. Rebentrost, and D. W. Berry, “Quantum linear system solvers: A survey of algorithms and applications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02522, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Solving linear systems on quantum hardware with hybrid hhl++,

    R. Yalovetzky, P. Minssen, D. Herman, and M. Pistoia, “Solving linear systems on quantum hardware with hybrid hhl++,” Scientific Reports, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 20610, 2024

    2024

  32. [32]

    An Early Investigation of the HHL Quantum Linear Solver for Scientific Applications,

    M. Zheng, C. Liu, S. Stein, X. Li, J. Mülmenstädt, Y . Chen, and A. Li, “An Early Investigation of the HHL Quantum Linear Solver for Scientific Applications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19067, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Efficient quantum algorithm for dissipative nonlinear differential equations,

    J.-P. Liu, H. Ø. Kolden, H. K. Krovi, N. F. Loureiro, K. Trivisa, and A. M. Childs, “Efficient quantum algorithm for dissipative nonlinear differential equations,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118, no. 35, p. e2026805118, 2021

    2021

  34. [34]

    Quantum algorithm for subcellular multiscale reaction-diffusion systems,

    M. Lockwood, N. Wiebe, C. Johnson, J. Mülmenstädt, J. Chun, G. Schenter, M. S. Cheung, and X. Li, “Quantum algorithm for subcellular multiscale reaction-diffusion systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.20668, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Finding flows of a navier–stokes fluid through quantum computing,

    F. Gaitan, “Finding flows of a navier–stokes fluid through quantum computing,”npj Quantum Information, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 61, 2020. 14 Quantum computing for spatially and temporally resolved models of a biological cell

    2020

  36. [36]

    Towards a quantum algorithm for the incompressible nonlinear navier-stokes equations,

    M. Gopalakrishnan Meena, Y . Zhang, W. Jiang, Y . Lin, S. Günther, and X. Gao, “Towards a quantum algorithm for the incompressible nonlinear navier-stokes equations,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 1, pp. 662–668, IEEE, 2024

    2024

  37. [37]

    Solving the Hele–Shaw flow using the Harrow–Hassidim–Lloyd algorithm on superconducting devices: A study of efficiency and challenges,

    M. Gopalakrishnan Meena, K. C. Gottiparthi, J. G. Lietz, A. Georgiadou, and E. A. Coello Pérez, “Solving the Hele–Shaw flow using the Harrow–Hassidim–Lloyd algorithm on superconducting devices: A study of efficiency and challenges,” Physics of Fluids, vol. 36, no. 10, 2024

    2024

  38. [38]

    Incompressible navier–stokes solve on noisy quantum hardware via a hybrid quantum–classical scheme,

    Z. Song, R. Deaton, B. Gard, and S. H. Bryngelson, “Incompressible navier–stokes solve on noisy quantum hardware via a hybrid quantum–classical scheme,” Computers & Fluids, vol. 288, p. 106507, 2025

    2025

  39. [39]

    Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions,

    D. T. Gillespie, “Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions,” The journal of physical chemistry, vol. 81, no. 25, pp. 2340–2361, 1977

    1977

  40. [40]

    Stochastic simulation of chemical kinetics,

    D. T. Gillespie, “Stochastic simulation of chemical kinetics,” Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem., vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 35–55, 2007

    2007

  41. [41]

    Direct solution of the chemical master equation using quantized tensor trains,

    V . Kazeev, M. Khammash, M. Nip, and C. Schwab, “Direct solution of the chemical master equation using quantized tensor trains,” PLoS computational biology, vol. 10, no. 3, p. e1003359, 2014

    2014

  42. [42]

    An in-silico human cell model reveals the influence of spatial organization on rna splicing,

    Z. Ghaemi, J. R. Peterson, M. Gruebele, and Z. Luthey-Schulten, “An in-silico human cell model reveals the influence of spatial organization on rna splicing,” PLoS computational biology, vol. 16, no. 3, p. e1007717, 2020

    2020

  43. [43]

    Quantifying the roles of space and stochasticity in computer simulations for cell biology and cellular biochemistry,

    M. E. Johnson, A. Chen, J. R. Faeder, P. Henning, I. I. Moraru, M. Meier-Schellersheim, R. F. Murphy, T. Prüstel, J. A. Theriot, and A. M. Uhrmacher, “Quantifying the roles of space and stochasticity in computer simulations for cell biology and cellular biochemistry,”Molecular Biology of the Cell, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 186–210, 2021

    2021

  44. [44]

    Quantum-accelerated multilevel monte carlo methods for stochastic differential equations in mathematical finance,

    D. An, N. Linden, J.-P. Liu, A. Montanaro, C. Shao, and J. Wang, “Quantum-accelerated multilevel monte carlo methods for stochastic differential equations in mathematical finance,” Quantum, vol. 5, p. 481, 2021

    2021

  45. [45]

    Quantum algorithms for stochastic differential equations: A schrödingerisation approach,

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and W. Wei, “Quantum algorithms for stochastic differential equations: A schrödingerisation approach,” Journal of Scientific Computing, vol. 104, no. 2, pp. 1–32, 2025

    2025

  46. [46]

    Quantum speed-up of markov chain based algorithms,

    M. Szegedy, “Quantum speed-up of markov chain based algorithms,” in 45th Annual IEEE symposium on foundations of computer science, pp. 32–41, IEEE, 2004

    2004

  47. [47]

    Quantum walks: a comprehensive review,

    S. E. Venegas-Andraca, “Quantum walks: a comprehensive review,”Quantum Information Processing, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 1015–1106, 2012

    2012

  48. [48]

    Quantum-enhanced markov chain monte carlo,

    D. Layden, G. Mazzola, R. V . Mishmash, M. Motta, P. Wocjan, J.-S. Kim, and S. Sheldon, “Quantum-enhanced markov chain monte carlo,” Nature, vol. 619, no. 7969, pp. 282–287, 2023

    2023

  49. [49]

    Bringing the genetically minimal cell to life on a computer in 4d,

    Z. R. Thornburg, A. Maytin, J. Kwon, T. A. Brier, B. R. Gilbert, E. Fu, Y .-L. Gao, J. Quenneville, T. Wu, H. Li, T. Long, W. Pezeshkian, L. Sun, J. I. Glass, A. P. Mehta, T. Ha, and Z. Luthey-Schulten, “Bringing the genetically minimal cell to life on a computer in 4d,” Cell, vol. 189, pp. 1–16, 2026

    2026

  50. [50]

    Qm/mm methods for biomolecular systems,

    H. M. Senn and W. Thiel, “Qm/mm methods for biomolecular systems,” Angewandte Chemie International Edition, vol. 48, no. 7, pp. 1198–1229, 2009

    2009

  51. [51]

    The protein data bank,

    H. M. Berman, T. Battistuz, T. N. Bhat, W. F. Bluhm, P. E. Bourne, K. Burkhardt, Z. Feng, G. L. Gilliland, L. Iype, S. Jain, et al., “The protein data bank,” Biological Crystallography, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 899–907, 2002

    2002

  52. [52]

    Announcing the worldwide protein data bank,

    H. Berman, K. Henrick, and H. Nakamura, “Announcing the worldwide protein data bank,”Nature structural & molecular biology, vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 980–980, 2003

    2003

  53. [53]

    Highly accurate protein structure prediction with alphafold,

    J. Jumper, R. Evans, A. Pritzel, T. Green, M. Figurnov, O. Ronneberger, K. Tunyasuvunakool, R. Bates, A. Žídek, A. Potapenko, et al., “Highly accurate protein structure prediction with alphafold,” nature, vol. 596, no. 7873, pp. 583–589, 2021

    2021

  54. [54]

    Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with alphafold 3,

    J. Abramson, J. Adler, J. Dunger, R. Evans, T. Green, A. Pritzel, O. Ronneberger, L. Willmore, A. J. Ballard, J. Bambrick, et al., “Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with alphafold 3,”Nature, vol. 630, no. 8016, pp. 493–500, 2024

    2024

  55. [55]

    Elucidating reaction mechanisms on quantum computers,

    M. Reiher, N. Wiebe, K. M. Svore, D. Wecker, and M. Troyer, “Elucidating reaction mechanisms on quantum computers,” Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, vol. 114, no. 29, pp. 7555–7560, 2017

    2017

  56. [56]

    Macromolecular crowding: obvious but underappreciated,

    R. J. Ellis, “Macromolecular crowding: obvious but underappreciated,” Trends in biochemical sciences, vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 597–604, 2001

    2001

  57. [57]

    Quantum measurements and the abelian stabilizer problem,

    A. Y . Kitaev, “Quantum measurements and the abelian stabilizer problem,”arXiv preprint quant-ph/9511026, 1995. 15 Quantum computing for spatially and temporally resolved models of a biological cell

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  58. [58]

    Crossing the 12,000-atom barrier with heterogeneous quantum-classical supercomputing: quantum chemistry of protein-ligand complexes,

    K. M. Merz Jr, A. Shajan, D. Kaliakin, F. Liang, Y . Otsuka, T. Shirakawa, L. Broers, H. Xu, M. Tsuji, M. Sato, et al., “Crossing the 12,000-atom barrier with heterogeneous quantum-classical supercomputing: quantum chemistry of protein-ligand complexes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.01138, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    A perspective on quantum computing applications in quantum chemistry using 25–100 logical qubits,

    Y . Alexeev, V . S. Batista, N. Bauman, L. Bertels, D. Claudino, R. Dutta, L. Gagliardi, S. Godwin, N. Govind, M. Head-Gordon, et al., “A perspective on quantum computing applications in quantum chemistry using 25–100 logical qubits,” Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, vol. 21, no. 22, pp. 11335–11357, 2025

    2025

  60. [60]

    A general method for numerically simulating the stochastic time evolution of coupled chemical reactions,

    D. T. Gillespie, “A general method for numerically simulating the stochastic time evolution of coupled chemical reactions,” Journal of computational physics, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 403–434, 1976

    1976

  61. [61]

    Biochemical network stochastic simulator (bionets): software for stochastic modeling of biochemical networks,

    D. Adalsteinsson, D. McMillen, and T. C. Elston, “Biochemical network stochastic simulator (bionets): software for stochastic modeling of biochemical networks,” BMC bioinformatics, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 24, 2004

    2004

  62. [62]

    A stochastic model for the evolution of metabolic networks with neighbor dependence,

    A. Mithani, G. M. Preston, and J. Hein, “A stochastic model for the evolution of metabolic networks with neighbor dependence,” Bioinformatics, vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 1528–1535, 2009

    2009

  63. [63]

    Stochastic simulation of cellular metabolism,

    E. J. Clement, T. T. Schulze, G. A. Soliman, B. J. Wysocki, P. H. Davis, and T. A. Wysocki, “Stochastic simulation of cellular metabolism,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 79734–79744, 2020

    2020

  64. [64]

    Convex optimization using quantum oracles,

    J. van Apeldoorn, A. Gilyén, S. Gribling, and R. de Wolf, “Convex optimization using quantum oracles,” Quantum, vol. 4, p. 220, 2020

    2020

  65. [65]

    Fast quantum subroutines for the simplex method,

    G. Nannicini, “Fast quantum subroutines for the simplex method,” Operations Research, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 763– 780, 2024

    2024

  66. [66]

    Quantum speed-ups for solving semidefinite programs,

    F. G. Brandao and K. M. Svore, “Quantum speed-ups for solving semidefinite programs,” in 2017 IEEE 58th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 415–426, IEEE, 2017

    2017

  67. [67]

    Simulation of chemical reactions on a quantum computer,

    S. S. Kale and S. Kais, “Simulation of chemical reactions on a quantum computer,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, vol. 15, no. 21, pp. 5633–5642, 2024

    2024

  68. [68]

    mrna secondary structure prediction using utility-scale quantum computers,

    D. Alevras, M. Metkar, T. Yamamoto, V . Kumar, T. Friedhoff, J.-E. Park, M. Takeori, M. LaDue, W. Davis, and A. Galda, “mrna secondary structure prediction using utility-scale quantum computers,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 1, pp. 488–499, IEEE, 2024

    2024

  69. [69]

    A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants,

    K. Blekos, D. Brand, A. Ceschini, C.-H. Chou, R.-H. Li, K. Pandya, and A. Summer, “A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants,” Physics Reports, vol. 1068, pp. 1–66, 2024

    2024

  70. [70]

    Quantum walk based search algorithms,

    M. Santha, “Quantum walk based search algorithms,” in International Conference on Theory and Applications of Models of Computation, pp. 31–46, Springer, 2008

    2008

  71. [71]

    Modeling stochastic chemical kinetics on quantum computers,

    T. Kabengele, Y . M. Lokare, J. Marston, and B. M. Rubenstein, “Modeling stochastic chemical kinetics on quantum computers,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08770, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  72. [72]

    On the asymptotic complexity of matrix multiplication,

    D. Coppersmith and S. Winograd, “On the asymptotic complexity of matrix multiplication,”SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 472–492, 1982

    1982

  73. [73]

    High-performance whole-cell simulation exploiting modular cell biology principles,

    B. Das and P. Mitra, “High-performance whole-cell simulation exploiting modular cell biology principles,” Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 1481–1492, 2021

    2021

  74. [74]

    Fundamental behaviors emerge from simulations of a living minimal cell,

    Z. R. Thornburg, D. M. Bianchi, T. A. Brier, B. R. Gilbert, E. E. Earnest, M. C. Melo, N. Safronova, J. P. Sáenz, A. T. Cook, K. S. Wise, et al., “Fundamental behaviors emerge from simulations of a living minimal cell,”Cell, vol. 185, no. 2, pp. 345–360, 2022

    2022

  75. [75]

    Quantum algorithms for multiscale partial differential equations,

    J. Hu, S. Jin, and L. Zhang, “Quantum algorithms for multiscale partial differential equations,” Multiscale Modeling & Simulation, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1030–1067, 2024

    2024

  76. [76]

    A quantum algorithm to solve nonlinear differential equations,

    S. K. Leyton and T. J. Osborne, “A quantum algorithm to solve nonlinear differential equations,”arXiv preprint arXiv:0812.4423, 2008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  77. [77]

    Quantum algorithm for nonlinear differential equations,

    S. Lloyd, G. De Palma, C. Gokler, B. Kiani, Z.-W. Liu, M. Marvian, F. Tennie, and T. Palmer, “Quantum algorithm for nonlinear differential equations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.06571, 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  78. [78]

    Koopman–von neumann approach to quantum simulation of nonlinear classical dynamics,

    I. Joseph, “Koopman–von neumann approach to quantum simulation of nonlinear classical dynamics,” Physical Review Research, vol. 2, no. 4, p. 043102, 2020

    2020

  79. [79]

    Quantum algorithms for nonlinear partial differential equations,

    S. Jin and N. Liu, “Quantum algorithms for nonlinear partial differential equations,” Bulletin des Sciences Mathématiques, vol. 194, p. 103457, 2024

    2024

  80. [80]

    Quantum simulation of a noisy classical nonlinear dynamics,

    S. Bravyi, R. Manson-Sawko, M. Zayats, and S. Zhuk, “Quantum simulation of a noisy classical nonlinear dynamics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06198, 2025. 16 Quantum computing for spatially and temporally resolved models of a biological cell

    arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.