Memory-, Circuit-, and Ansatz-Efficient VQLS for CFD on Hybrid Quantum-HPC Systems

Chao Lu; Eduardo Antonio Coello Perez; Kalyana Chakravarthi Gottiparthi; Muralikrishnan Gopalakrishnan Meena; Seongmin Kim

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Memory-, Circuit-, and Ansatz-Efficient VQLS for CFD on Hybrid Quantum-HPC Systems

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Matrix encoding dominates VQLS runtime: an SVD two-term encoding delivers over 10,000x per-iteration speedup at 8 qubits, while FWHT-based Pauli decomposition cuts peak memory up to 1,298x, and expressibility metrics fail to predict…

desk verdict Useful engineering benchmarks for VQLS matrix encodings, but the headline 10,000x speedup is a simulator primitive, not a demonstrated circuit or end-to-end advantage; the paper needs revision before it should appear. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09661 v1 pith:NN26IGIE submitted 2026-08-10 quant-ph cs.ET

Chao Lu , Muralikrishnan Gopalakrishnan Meena , Eduardo Antonio Coello Perez , Kalyana Chakravarthi Gottiparthi , Seongmin Kim This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcs.ET

keywords VQLSlinearcombinationofunitariesFastWalsh-HadamardtransformPaulidecompositionsingularvalueblockencodingHele-Shawflowquantum-HPC

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

This paper tries to show that, for the Variational Quantum Linear Solver (VQLS) applied to fluid-dynamics linear systems, the way the system matrix is encoded is the main lever on runtime and memory. It derives an exact two-term linear-combination-of-unitaries (LCU) representation from the singular value decomposition, $A = \frac{\|A\|_2}{2}(U_+ + U_-)$, and reports that combining it with a coherent, block-encoded VQLS gives over 10,000x per-iteration speedup over standard Pauli-based VQLS at 8 qubits, with the advantage widening through 15 qubits. The paper also shows that a Fast Walsh-Hadamard Transform (FWHT)-based Pauli decomposition reduces peak classical memory by up to 1,298x on an 11x11 Hele-Shaw grid, and that tolerance-based truncation can cut a 15-qubit Toeplitz matrix to four Pauli terms at 0.045 relative Frobenius error. On the ansatz side, benchmarking 11 circuit families, it finds expressibility and entanglement metrics correlate only weakly with convergence, arguing for problem-aware ansatz design. The motivation is to give an end-to-end, reproducible baseline for VQLS on hybrid quantum-HPC systems, where CFD workloads require many repeated linear solves.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the SVD two-term LCU: $A = \frac{\|A\|_2}{2}(U D_+ V^T + U D_- V^T)$, with $D_\pm = \frac{\Sigma}{\|A\|_2} \pm i\sqrt{I - (\Sigma/\|A\|_2)^2}$, where $A = U\Sigma V^T$ and $\|A\|_2$ is the spectral norm. It maps each normalized singular value onto the unit circle, making $D_\pm$ unitary and therefore $U_\pm = U D_\pm V^T$ unitary, so every real square matrix becomes a sum of exactly two unitaries regardless of size. The other central mechanism is the Fast Walsh-Hadamard Transform computation of Pauli coefficients, which replaces the naive enumeration of all $4^n$ Pauli strings with an $O(n^2 \log n)$ transform using fixed auxiliary memory. Ansatz quality is measured by expressibility, the Kullback-Leibler divergence of the circuit's fidelity distribution from the Haar-uniform distribution, and by mean Meyer-Wallach entanglement capability.

What would settle it

Compile the SVD-derived unitaries $U_+$ and $U_-$ for an 8-qubit tridiagonal Toeplitz system into elementary gates (single-qubit rotations and CNOTs) and measure the resulting circuit depth and per-iteration time: if the depth grows exponentially with qubit count, the 10,000x per-iteration speedup disappears outside the dense-matrix simulator. A complementary test is to run the coherent SVD block-encoded VQLS on real quantum hardware at 8 qubits and compare wall-clock time per iteration with the Pauli-encoded VQLS; the speedup claim stands only if the hardware times still favor the SVD encoding.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that matrix-encoding strategy, not ansatz choice, dominates per-iteration cost in VQLS. The key move is an exact two-term LCU from the singular value decomposition: writing $A = U\Sigma V^T$ and normalizing $\Sigma$ by the spectral norm, the diagonal matrices $D_\pm = \frac{\Sigma}{\|A\|_2} \pm i\sqrt{I - (\Sigma/\|A\|_2)^2}$ are unitary, so $A = \frac{\|A\|_2}{2}(U D_+ V^T + U D_- V^T)$ expresses any real square matrix as half the sum of two unitaries. With a coherent VQLS that encodes $A$ as a block in a single circuit, the cost evaluated per iteration drops from $2L^2 n_b$ circuit executions in the Pauli approach to a single circuit, giving the measured 10,000x speedup at 8 qubits and best timing up to 15 qubits. The paper further claims that the FWHT-based Pauli decomposition computes all coefficients with $O(n^2 \log n)$ work and fixed auxiliary memory, cutting peak memory by up to 1,298x on an 11x11 Hele-Shaw Jacobian, and that an approximate, tolerance-controlled version compresses a 15-qubit tridiagonal Toeplitz matrix to four Pauli terms with relative Frobenius error 0.045. Finally, across 11 ansatz families, expressibility (KL divergence from the Haar-uniform fidelity distribution) and entanglement capability show only weak correlation with convergence, so generic circuit metrics are unreliable guides to VQLS performance.

Load-bearing premise

The timing comparisons assume the two SVD-derived unitaries $U_+$ and $U_-$ can be applied at the cost of a dense-matrix unitary operation in the simulation software, but the paper gives no gate-level decomposition of the orthogonal matrices $U$ and $V$, which generally require exponentially deep circuits on real hardware.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

FWHT-based Pauli decomposition scales classical matrix preprocessing to $O(n^2 \log n)$ with fixed auxiliary memory, so VQLS initialization can reach larger grid sizes before memory runs out.
The SVD two-term LCU reduces the number of unitaries in the cost circuit to exactly two, and with coherent VQLS it yields the lowest per-iteration time of every strategy tested, with the advantage growing from 8 to 15 qubits.
Tolerance-controlled approximate Pauli decomposition can compress a 15-qubit tridiagonal Toeplitz matrix to four Pauli terms at 0.045 relative Frobenius error, substantially reducing circuit-count pressure with negligible loss of solution fidelity.
Expressibility and entanglement metrics are not reliable proxies for VQLS convergence, so ansatz selection should be driven by problem structure rather than generic circuit statistics.
The complete workflow runs on a production HPC system and simulates a 15-qubit tridiagonal Toeplitz linear system on a single node within a two-hour wall-time budget.

Reading between the lines

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

The 10,000x speedup is measured in a simulator that applies the SVD-derived unitaries as dense matrices; since no gate decomposition for $U$ and $V$ is provided, the speedup is likely to shrink or vanish on real hardware where arbitrary orthogonal matrices require exponential-depth circuits.
The FWHT memory reduction applies to the classical preprocessing step only, not to the number of circuits executed per VQLS iteration, so it helps matrix initialization scale while leaving Pauli-encoded per-iteration runtime unchanged.
If structure-aware decompositions of $U$ and $V$, such as Givens rotations for tridiagonal systems, can be compiled efficiently, the SVD two-term encoding could become hardware-portable; testing per-iteration time with such compiled circuits would settle whether the speedup survives outside the simulator.
The weak correlation between expressibility and convergence suggests cost-landscape features such as gradient variance or the density of local minima, rather than expressibility, govern VQLS trainability; measuring those features across the 11 ansatz families would be a direct next step.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The real value here is the systematic benchmark of matrix encodings for VQLS on CFD-type matrices. The FWHT-based Pauli decomposition numbers (1298x peak memory reduction on an 11x11 Hele-Shaw grid, O(n^2 log n) scaling) are concrete and useful, and the truncation sweep in Figure 6 is a practical contribution. The two-term SVD LCU derivation (Eqs. 6-10) is mathematically correct, and the ansatz comparison sensibly tests whether expressibility and entanglement metrics predict convergence; the finding that they don't is worth reporting, even though it comes from a single 4x4 instance. I also credit the authors for actually running on Frontier and for admitting in the conclusions that SVD preprocessing has non-negligible overhead and that no single encoding dominates. The soft spots are exactly where the reader and the stress-test put them. The 10,000x per-iteration speedup at 8 qubits comes from calling PennyLane's QubitUnitary with the dense orthogonal factors U and V from Eq. (6). Since no gate decomposition is given for these arbitrary unitaries, the speedup is a measure of how many circuit evaluations a two-term LCU saves in a simulator, not a reduction in circuit cost on hardware or in a scalable state-vector simulator. The paper also omits the classical SVD preprocessing time, and provides no convergence trajectory for the SVD coherent variant at the timed sizes - so a reader cannot tell whether the per-iteration win survives wall-clock or yields a correct solution. The title's "circuit-efficient" is therefore an overclaim. These are fixable in revision: give a synthesis method for U+- (or state clearly that none is known and benchmark accordingly), report end-to-end times including SVD, and show convergence at 15 qubits. One thing I disagree with in the skeptic's note: calling the ansatz correlation "weak" is fine, but the paper doesn't overstate it - they conclude only that generic metrics are not a reliable proxy. Fair. Also, the self-citation to their earlier Hele-Shaw work is legitimate given the shared problem setup. Who is this for? Someone building VQLS pipelines and choosing between Pauli and block-encoding strategies will get practical guidance from the encoding benchmarks and the truncation trade-off. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee should insist on the missing gate synthesis and convergence data before publication. My own verdict would be conditional accept after major revision.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper benchmarks four LCU matrix-encoding strategies for VQLS on CFD-style linear systems—naive Pauli decomposition, PennyLane-integrated decomposition, FWHT-based parallel Pauli decomposition, and an SVD-based two-term LCU—and tests 11 ansatz families on a 4x4 Hele-Shaw problem. The main reported results are: FWHT reduces peak memory by up to 1298x for an 11x11 Hele-Shaw Jacobian; the SVD-based two-term LCU yields over 10,000x per-iteration speedup over Pauli-based VQLS at 8 qubits; expressibility and entanglement metrics correlate only weakly with VQLS convergence; and the Pauli coherent VQLS simulates a 15-qubit tridiagonal Toeplitz system on Frontier within the wall-time limit. The SVD derivation in Eqs. (6)-(10) is a valid exact two-term LCU, and the paper is candid in Section V that the coherent variant requires deep block-encoding circuits and that SVD preprocessing carries non-negligible classical overhead.

Significance. If the headline claims held in an end-to-end sense, this would be a useful engineering baseline: the FWHT decomposition is a clear scalability improvement, the exact SVD two-term LCU is mathematically elegant and reduces the number of circuit evaluations per VQLS iteration, and the negative ansatz result is practically relevant for algorithm selection. Strengths include the honest parameter sweep over truncation tolerance, the explicit decomposition algorithms, and the Frontier deployment data at up to 15 qubits. The significance is substantially limited, however, by the fact that the 10,000x per-iteration speedup is measured with PennyLane's dense QubitUnitary primitive for the SVD unitaries, for which no gate decomposition is supplied; the circuit-efficiency claim therefore applies to a simulator-specific primitive, not to a realistic quantum circuit. The missing end-to-end accounting (SVD preprocessing cost, convergence iterations, and memory footprints) also prevents converting the per-iteration numbers into wall-clock solve-time or hardware-realistic comparisons.

major comments (4)

[§III-C, Eqs. (6)-(10); §IV-E, Fig. 11] The abstract and Section IV-E claim 'over 10,000x per-iteration speedup' for SVD coherent VQLS, but the timings apply U+ and U- as PennyLane dense QubitUnitary operations. For generic orthogonal matrices U and V from Eq. (6), exact synthesis requires exponentially many two-qubit gates, and the dense representation costs O(2^{2n}) memory. Because no gate decomposition or depth estimate is supplied, the measured speedup reflects the number of circuit evaluations avoided by a two-term LCU, not a circuit-cost or hardware-realistic speedup; the 'circuit-efficient' characterization in the title is therefore unsupported. The paper's own Section V concedes that the coherent variant 'requires deep block-encoding circuits,' but this cost is neither quantified nor included in the headline comparison.
[§IV-E, Fig. 11; §V] The SVD coherent variant fails with an out-of-memory error on GPU simulation before reaching 15 qubits, so the most favorable scaling curve in Figure 11 is not demonstrated at the largest sizes. The paper should report the memory footprint per qubit count, the size at which each encoding becomes infeasible, and the feasible range over which the claimed advantage actually holds. Without this, the statement that SVD coherent VQLS has 'the best performance among all mentioned VQLS variants' cannot be assessed as a scalability result.
[§IV-E; §V] The per-iteration timings exclude the classical SVD preprocessing of Eq. (6) and the construction of D± in Eq. (8), which is O(2^{3n}) for a dense 2^n x 2^n matrix. They also exclude the number of optimizer iterations required by the SVD coherent variant to converge; no convergence trajectories are shown for the timed runs. To support the practical claim of a '10,000x speedup' or 'best per-iteration timing,' the paper needs end-to-end wall-clock comparisons including preprocessing and iteration counts, or it must explicitly restrict the claim to the per-iteration simulator cost.
[§IV-D, Table I and Fig. 9] The claim that expressibility and entanglement metrics 'correlate only weakly' with VQLS convergence is presented without a quantitative correlation measure. Table I gives KL divergence and Meyer-Wallach values for n=4, while Figure 9 shows only learning curves for one 4x4 Hele-Shaw instance with a 100-step budget. The paper should report a correlation coefficient or equivalent over the 11 ansatze and, ideally, over multiple problem instances; as written, the conclusion is an informal reading of two figures.

minor comments (5)

[§III-E] The objective statement 'minimizes 1−U(A)|V(w)⟩ · |b⟩ †' is malformed; it should be written as a scalar fidelity expression such as 1 − |⟨b| U(A) V(w)|0⟩|^2.
[Abstract and throughout] The text contains several typos and grammar errors, including 'an singular value decomposition,' 'pennylanelightning.kokkosto,' 'Toplitz,' 'computation fluid dynamic,' and 'demonstrating a increasing performance.' A careful copyedit is needed.
[§IV-C] The formula '2L2nb circuit executions' is ambiguous; it should be written with explicit notation, likely 2 L 2^{n_b} circuit executions per function evaluation.
[Fig. 11 caption] The caption says 'Scipy-free optimizers,' but the text and legend refer to 'Scipy-based' optimization; the caption contradicts the body and should be corrected.
[Algorithm 2 and §IV-A] Algorithm 2 does not include the tolerance parameter or the truncation step that Section IV-A describes for the approximate Pauli decomposition; adding the thresholding step to the pseudocode would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline results are benchmark measurements, a swept trade-off study, and a self-contained mathematical identity, with no load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's three headline results are benchmark measurements or direct mathematical identities, not quantities derived from the claims they are meant to establish. The FWHT-based Pauli decomposition implements the external FWHT algorithm [25], and the 1298x memory reduction is an observed comparison on an 11x11 Hele-Shaw grid. The SVD-based two-term LCU in Eqs. (6)-(10) is a self-contained identity: U± are defined from the SVD factors of A, and summing them algebraically gives 2A/||A||_2; no fitted parameter or target result is assumed. The 10,000x per-iteration speedup is a wall-clock benchmark comparing PennyLane simulator implementations, not a theoretical prediction derived from an assumption that already contains the speedup. The truncation tolerance in Section IV-A is swept, not fitted to force a conclusion. The ansatz study computes expressibility via the external Sim et al. metric [26] and then tests whether it predicts convergence, rather than defining convergence in terms of expressibility. Self-citations [12], [22], [23], [24] appear only as related work and problem-choice context; none carries a load-bearing uniqueness or equivalence argument. The most plausible circularity candidate—that the coherent SVD timing counts PennyLane's dense QubitUnitary as a single circuit rather than a decomposed gate sequence—is a fairness or generality concern about the benchmark, not a reduction of a claimed result to its inputs by construction. Under the stated rules, that concern belongs in correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical claims rest on two hand-chosen parameters and on the assumption that dense SVD-derived unitaries can be treated as executable quantum circuits. No new physical entities are introduced. The FWHT algorithm is adopted from prior work and the expressibility metrics from the literature, so those are background axioms rather than derived contributions.

free parameters (2)

truncation tolerance = 0.01 for the HPC benchmark; swept from 1e-12 to 0.1 in Fig. 6
The approximate Pauli decomposition discards coefficients below this threshold. The value 0.01 is chosen for the timing benchmark without a problem-specific accuracy target, and it directly controls the number of LCU terms and thus the VQLS circuit count (Section IV-A, IV-E).
number of ansatz layers = 4 for the validation study; tested from 1 to 8
The validation uses four or more layers to reach fidelity above 0.9999 (Figure 7). The layer count is a hand-chosen hyperparameter that affects convergence and circuit depth.

assumptions (4)

standard math The FWHT-based Pauli decomposition correctly computes the Pauli coefficients for the input matrices.
Adopted from Georges et al. [25] and used without independent verification in this paper (Section III-B).
domain assumption Amplitude encoding can prepare the state |b> efficiently for the test problems.
The paper uses amplitude encoding (Section III-D) but does not analyze its circuit cost; general state preparation can require exponential resources.
ad hoc to paper PennyLane's Lightning simulator application of SVD-derived unitaries as dense QubitUnitary operations is a valid proxy for quantum circuit execution.
The per-iteration timings for SVD-based encodings rely on this assumption; no gate decomposition of the arbitrary orthogonal U and V is provided (Section III-C, IV-E).
domain assumption Expressibility and entanglement capability from Sim et al. [26] are the relevant descriptors of ansatz quality.
The study tests this assumption and finds weak correlation with convergence; the metrics themselves are taken as given (Section III-D).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Memory-, Circuit-, and Ansatz-Efficient VQLS for CFD on Hybrid Quantum-HPC Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NN26IGIE

@misc{pith2026260809661,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Memory-, Circuit-, and Ansatz-Efficient VQLS for CFD on Hybrid Quantum-HPC Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NN26IGIE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09661}
}

abstract

Fluid dynamics workloads are dominated by repeated solves of large, structured linear systems, motivating the search for quantum acceleration. The Variational Quantum Linear Solver (VQLS) is a leading near-term candidate, but practical deployment on hybrid quantum--high--performance computing (HPC) systems faces three persistent challenges: (i) the linear-combination-of-unitaries (LCU) encoding of the system matrix explodes in memory and runtime as the problem size grows, (ii) ansatz selection is largely empirical, with no clear link between standard circuit metrics and solver convergence, and (iii) end-to-end VQLS pipelines have rarely been exercised on production HPC hardware at non-trivial qubit counts. This work addresses these challenges through three contributions. First, we benchmark four matrix-encoding strategies---naive LCU, PennyLane-integrated, Fast Walsh--Hadamard Transform (FWHT)-based parallel Pauli decomposition, and an singular value decomposition (SVD)-based two-term LCU---and show that the FWHT approach reduces peak memory by up to $1298\times$ on an $11\times 11$ Hele--Shaw grid, while the SVD-based coherent VQLS delivers over $10{,}000\times$ per-iteration speedup over standard Pauli-based VQLS at 8 qubits. Second, we evaluate 11 ansatz families with gradient-free and gradient-based optimizers on canonical Hele--Shaw flow, and find that expressibility and entanglement metrics correlate only weakly with VQLS convergence, motivating problem-aware ansatz design. Third, we deploy the full workflow on the OLCF Frontier supercomputer and successfully simulate a 15-qubit tridiagonal Toeplitz system on a single node. Together, these results establish a practical baseline for VQLS in hybrid quantum--HPC computation fluid dynamic (CFD) workflows and identify the remaining bottlenecks for larger problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09661 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** VQLS workflow combining quantum circuit components with classical optimization steps to approximate the solution to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Different quantum ansatz setups with the corresponding expressibility. All quantum ansatz shown contain 4 qubits with 2 layers each. The numbers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Schematic representation of the Variational Quantum Linear Solver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Circuit diagram for block encoding via LCU decomposition. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Pauli decomposition performance for a canonical Hele–Shaw Jacobian using the naive approach, the PennyLane-integrated approach, and the FWHT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Effect of quantum ansatz layers on cost value and fidelity. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Comparing velocity reconstruction for the Hele–Shaw flow with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Torch-based optimizer (NAdam) learning curve comparison of all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Time consumption scaling per iteration of standard and coherent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[1]

Kernel methods through the roof: handling billions of points efficiently,

G. Meanti, L. Carratino, L. Rosasco, and A. Rudi, “Kernel methods through the roof: handling billions of points efficiently,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 14 410–14 422, 2020

work page 2020
[2]

Uncertainty quantification and experimental design for large-scale linear inverse problems under gaussian process priors,

C. Travelletti, D. Ginsbourger, and N. Linde, “Uncertainty quantification and experimental design for large-scale linear inverse problems under gaussian process priors,”SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantifica- tion, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 168–198, 2023

work page 2023
[3]

J. W. Demmel,Applied numerical linear algebra. SIAM, 1997

work page 1997
[4]

On the use of exponential time inte- gration methods in atmospheric models,

C. Clancy and J. A. Pudykiewicz, “On the use of exponential time inte- gration methods in atmospheric models,”Tellus A: Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography, vol. 65, no. 1, p. 20898, 2013

work page 2013
[5]

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

work page 1982
[6]

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

2022
[7]

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
[8]

Variable time amplitude amplification and quantum algorithms for linear algebra problems,

A. Ambainis, “Variable time amplitude amplification and quantum algorithms for linear algebra problems,” inSTACS’12 (29th Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science), vol. 14. LIPIcs, 2012, pp. 636–647

work page 2012

Show all 35 references

[9]

Quantum algorithm for systems of linear equations with exponentially improved dependence on precision,

A. M. Childs, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, “Quantum algorithm for systems of linear equations with exponentially improved dependence on precision,”SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 1920–1950, 2017

1920
[10]

Quantum algorithms for systems of linear equations inspired by adiabatic quantum computing,

Y . Subas ¸ı, R. D. Somma, and D. Orsucci, “Quantum algorithms for systems of linear equations inspired by adiabatic quantum computing,” Physical review letters, vol. 122, no. 6, p. 060504, 2019

2019
[11]

Quantum linear system solver based on time-optimal adiabatic quantum computing and quantum approximate optimization algorithm,

D. An and L. Lin, “Quantum linear system solver based on time-optimal adiabatic quantum computing and quantum approximate optimization algorithm,”ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1–28, 2022

2022
[12]

Lugo: an enhanced quantum phase estimation implementation,

C. Lu, M. G. Meena, and K. C. Gottiparthi, “Lugo: an enhanced quantum phase estimation implementation,”Future Generation Computer Sys- tems, p. 108270, 2025

2025
[13]

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

2024 arXiv
[14]

Optimal polynomial based quantum eigenstate filtering with application to solving quantum linear systems,

L. Lin and Y . Tong, “Optimal polynomial based quantum eigenstate filtering with application to solving quantum linear systems,”Quantum, vol. 4, p. 361, 2020

2020
[15]

Optimal scaling quantum linear-systems solver via discrete adiabatic theorem,

P. C. Costa, D. An, Y . R. Sanders, Y . Su, R. Babbush, and D. W. Berry, “Optimal scaling quantum linear-systems solver via discrete adiabatic theorem,”PRX quantum, vol. 3, no. 4, p. 040303, 2022

2022
[16]

Efficient quantum linear solver algorithm with detailed running costs,

D. Jennings, M. Lostaglio, S. Pallister, A. T. Sornborger, and Y . Subas ¸ı, “Efficient quantum linear solver algorithm with detailed running costs,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11352, 2023

2023
[17]

Variational quantum algorithms,

M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincioet al., “Variational quantum algorithms,”Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 625– 644, 2021

2021
[18]

Variational quantum linear solver,

C. Bravo-Prieto, R. LaRose, M. Cerezo, Y . Subasi, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, “Variational quantum linear solver,”Quantum, vol. 7, p. 1188, 2023

2023
[19]

Variational quantum solutions to the advection–diffusion equation for applications in fluid dynamics,

R. Demirdjian, D. Gunlycke, C. A. Reynolds, J. D. Doyle, and S. Tafur, “Variational quantum solutions to the advection–diffusion equation for applications in fluid dynamics,”Quantum Information Processing, vol. 21, no. 9, p. 322, 2022

2022
[20]

A hybrid quantum-classical framework for computational fluid dynamics,

C.-C. Ye, N.-B. An, T.-Y . Ma, M.-H. Dou, W. Bai, D.-J. Sun, Z.- Y . Chen, and G.-P. Guo, “A hybrid quantum-classical framework for computational fluid dynamics,”Physics of Fluids, vol. 36, no. 12, 2024

2024
[21]

Demonstration of scalability and accuracy of variational quantum linear solver for computational fluid dynamics,

F. S. D. Bosco, R. Lineswala, A. Chopraet al., “Demonstration of scalability and accuracy of variational quantum linear solver for computational fluid dynamics,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03241, 2024

2024 arXiv
[22]

Assessing vqls for fluid dynamics on a hybrid quantum-hpc stack,

M. G. Meena, C. Lu, E. A. C. P ´erez, A. Shehata, S. Kim, K. C. Gottiparthi, and I.-S. Suh, “Assessing vqls for fluid dynamics on a hybrid quantum-hpc stack,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 2. IEEE, 2025, pp. 484–485

2025
[23]

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 P´erez, “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
[24]

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

M. Gopalakrishnan Meena, Y . Zhang, W. Jiang, Y . Lin, S. G ¨unther, and X. Gao, “Towards a quantum algorithm for the incompressible nonlinear navier-stokes equations,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 1. IEEE, 2024, pp. 662–668

2024
[25]

Pauli decomposition via the fast walsh-hadamard transform,

T. N. Georges, B. K. Berntson, C. S ¨underhauf, and A. V . Ivanov, “Pauli decomposition via the fast walsh-hadamard transform,”New Journal of Physics, vol. 27, no. 3, p. 033004, 2025

2025
[26]

Expressibility and entan- gling capability of parameterized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum- classical algorithms,

S. Sim, P. D. Johnson, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “Expressibility and entan- gling capability of parameterized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum- classical algorithms,”Advanced Quantum Technologies, vol. 2, no. 12, p. 1900070, 2019

2019
[27]

Coherent Variational Quantum Linear Solver,

A. Mari, “Coherent Variational Quantum Linear Solver,” PennyLane Demos, Nov. 2019, last updated: April 16, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://pennylane.ai/qml/demos/tutorial coherent vqls

2019
[28]

Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics,

A. Gily ´en, Y . Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, “Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics,” inProceedings of the 51st annual ACM SIGACT symposium on theory of computing, 2019, pp. 193–204

2019
[29]

The power of block-encoded matrix powers: improved regression techniques via faster hamiltonian simulation,

S. Chakraborty, A. Gily ´en, and S. Jeffery, “The power of block-encoded matrix powers: improved regression techniques via faster hamiltonian simulation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.01973, 2018

2018 arXiv
[30]

Explicit quantum circuits for block encodings of certain sparse matrices,

D. Camps, L. Lin, R. Van Beeumen, and C. Yang, “Explicit quantum circuits for block encodings of certain sparse matrices,”SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 801–827, 2024

2024
[31]

Block-encoding structured matrices for data input in quantum computing,

C. S ¨underhauf, E. Campbell, and J. Camps, “Block-encoding structured matrices for data input in quantum computing,”Quantum, vol. 8, p. 1226, 2024

2024
[32]

Towards hybrid quantum-classical comput- ing for large-scale cfd: Tackling scalability challenges of the variational quantum linear solver,

V . D’Souza, D. S, T. Kumar, R. Kolluru, F. Don Bosco, A. Chopra, R. Lineswala, and O. Sahni, “Towards hybrid quantum-classical comput- ing for large-scale cfd: Tackling scalability challenges of the variational quantum linear solver,” inAIAA AVIATION FORUM AND ASCEND 2025, 20...

2025
[33]

Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical com- putations,

V . Bergholm, J. Izaac, M. Schuld, C. Gogolin, S. Ahmed, V . Ajith, M. S. Alam, G. Alonso-Linaje, B. AkashNarayanan, A. Asadiet al., “Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical com- putations,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.04968, 2018

2018 arXiv
[34]

M. J. Powell,A direct search optimization method that models the objective and constraint functions by linear interpolation. Springer, 1994

1994
[35]

A comparison of various classical optimizers for a variational quantum linear solver,

A. Pellow-Jarman, I. Sinayskiy, A. Pillay, and F. Petruccione, “A comparison of various classical optimizers for a variational quantum linear solver,”Quantum Information Processing, vol. 20, no. 6, p. 202, 2021

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Kernel methods through the roof: handling billions of points efficiently,

G. Meanti, L. Carratino, L. Rosasco, and A. Rudi, “Kernel methods through the roof: handling billions of points efficiently,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 14 410–14 422, 2020

work page 2020

[2] [2]

Uncertainty quantification and experimental design for large-scale linear inverse problems under gaussian process priors,

C. Travelletti, D. Ginsbourger, and N. Linde, “Uncertainty quantification and experimental design for large-scale linear inverse problems under gaussian process priors,”SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantifica- tion, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 168–198, 2023

work page 2023

[3] [3]

J. W. Demmel,Applied numerical linear algebra. SIAM, 1997

work page 1997

[4] [4]

On the use of exponential time inte- gration methods in atmospheric models,

C. Clancy and J. A. Pudykiewicz, “On the use of exponential time inte- gration methods in atmospheric models,”Tellus A: Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography, vol. 65, no. 1, p. 20898, 2013

work page 2013

[5] [5]

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

work page 1982

[6] [6]

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

2022

[7] [7]

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

[8] [8]

Variable time amplitude amplification and quantum algorithms for linear algebra problems,

A. Ambainis, “Variable time amplitude amplification and quantum algorithms for linear algebra problems,” inSTACS’12 (29th Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science), vol. 14. LIPIcs, 2012, pp. 636–647

work page 2012