Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 35 references

A lattice-gas collision for Burgers' equation can be implemented so that every LCU measurement outcome is a valid update, giving time-marching with no failed steps.

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 ↗

A quantum lattice gas implementation of Burgers' equation is shown to run through arbitrary numbers of LCU time steps without any probabilistic failure, the first such nonlinear time-marching scheme.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection The LCU-conjugation theorem checks out and the no-postselection construction is correct, but the phase-independence claim is too broad as stated; still a solid methods paper worth refereeing. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.02130 v1 pith:SMEGHFHH submitted 2026-08-03 quant-ph

Unconditionally successful quantum Time-Marching algorithm via LCU for nonlinear Burgers equation

Niccolo Fonio , Giuseppe Di Molfetta , Pierre Sagaut This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P68 PACS 03.67.Ac
keywords quantum time-marching algorithmslinear combination of unitaries (LCU)nonlinear Burgers equationquantum lattice gas cellular automatanon-unitary operationspostselection-free quantum simulationcomputational basis encodingpseudo-commutativity
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.

The reading

This paper asks whether repeated nonlinear time steps can be run on a quantum computer without the probabilistic rejection of bad runs that afflicts most quantum solvers for nonlinear PDEs. It answers yes for the one-dimensional Burgers' equation by translating a classical lattice gas cellular automaton into a linear combination of unitaries followed by a single ancilla measurement. The central move is to assign one of two collision operators to the two possible measurement outcomes, so that every outcome advances the computation: nothing is postselected away. The authors prove that after a phase adjustment the collision operators satisfy completeness and pseudo-commutativity, the exact conditions making them LCU-conjugated, and that time steps concatenate with success probability one in O(T) circuit depth. If correct, this removes the exponential-in-T postselection penalty of previous nonlinear time-marching approaches and gives a concrete template for turning stochastic classical integrators into unconditionally successful quantum ones.

Core claim

The central discovery is a condition under which non-unitary evolution can be implemented without ever discarding a run. For a one-ancilla LCU, the operations C0 and C1 that act on the target when the ancilla reads 0 or 1 are called LCU-conjugated; Theorem 1 shows they have this form exactly when C0†C0 + C1†C1 = I and a conditional pseudo-commutativity relation holds, which for Hadamard ancilla rotations reduces to C0†C1 + C1†C0 = 0. The paper then finds that the collision rule of a lattice gas for Burgers' equation can be phase-adjusted to meet these constraints while preserving the measured occupation probabilities, because the computational-basis encoding is treated as phase-independent.

What carries the argument

The key object is the LCU-conjugated operator: a pair of operators realized by conditioning on the ancilla measurement of a linear-combination-of-unitaries circuit. The paper reduces their implementability to two algebraic tests: completeness, sum Ei†Ei = I, and conditional pseudo-commutativity, which for the Hadamard-preparation case becomes E0†E1 + E1†E0 = 0. Satisfying these tests is precisely what lets a probabilistic classical update rule—here the random collision of the lattice gas—be replayed as a quantum computation in which the intrinsic randomness of measurement plays the role of the classical random variable, so no branch is rejected.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction relies on the assertion that modifying the collision operators by column phases does not change the physics, which is true only if the lattice register is always a product of computational basis states at collision time; if the state is ever a superposition of configurations, those phases create interference that changes the collision probabilities and breaks Burgers' equation.

What would settle it

Prepare a single lattice site in a superposition such as (|01> + |10>)/sqrt(2), run the one-step LCU circuit with the unitaries U0 and U1, and compare the post-measurement distribution of particle configurations with the classical LGCA mixture (apply C0 with probability p and C1 with probability 1-p). If the two distributions differ measurably, the phase modification is not actually phase-independent and the unconditional concatenation of time steps fails for amplitude-encoded initial data.

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

If this is right

  • The most direct consequence: quantum time-marching for Burgers' equation can be run for any number of steps with unit per-step success, replacing the exponential postselection overhead of earlier nonlinear solvers with O(T) circuit depth.
  • Any classical probabilistic update rule whose operators can be phase-adjusted to satisfy LCU-conjugated conditions becomes a candidate for the same treatment; the authors explicitly point to Monte Carlo methods and other lattice-gas automata as natural extensions.
  • The single-ancilla Hadamard design is pinned to equal branch probabilities; the paper shows that trying to tune them collapses back to the equal-probability case, so a single ancilla cannot freely adjust the effective diffusion coefficient.
  • The negative example—a randomly sampled finite-difference advection step in amplitude encoding fails the LCU-conjugated test—shows the conditions are genuinely discriminating: not every stochastic discretization can be made unconditionally successful.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the phase-independence assumption is tested with coherent superpositions, the construction may fail even though it works on computational basis states; a quick experiment on a two-level lattice site would settle whether the unconditional-success guarantee extends to amplitude-encoded initial data.
  • The principle suggests a design heuristic the paper leaves implicit: avoid deterministic numerical schemes wrapped in non-unitary oracles, and instead start from stochastic integrators whose randomness is the update—then LCU measurement can 'pay' that randomness for free.
  • The equal-probability obstruction for one ancilla might be lifted with two ancillas or POVM measurements, which the authors mention as possible generalizations; if so, the phase-adjustment construction could interpolate continuously between different diffusion coefficients while keeping every branch accepted.
  • The authors identify efficient lattice encoding as the open bottleneck; an encoding that reduces qubit count while preserving computational-basis phase independence would be the concrete next step toward practical quantum advantage for nonlinear fluid dynamics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the concept of LCU-conjugated operators, characterizes via Theorem 1 the conditions under which two non-unitary operators can be implemented as a one-ancilla LCU followed by measurement, and applies this framework to a classical lattice gas cellular automaton (LGCA) for Burgers' equation. The authors modify the LGCA collision operators by column phases to satisfy the completeness and pseudo-commutativity conditions, obtaining explicit unitaries U0, U1 (Eq. 27). They claim this gives the first quantum time-marching algorithm for Burgers' equation whose time steps concatenate without probabilistic failure, because either ancilla measurement outcome yields a valid collision step. The paper also claims that a naive randomized finite-difference discretization of advection cannot be LCU-conjugated under amplitude encoding, illustrating the design principles.

Significance. The core algebraic framework, Lemma 2 and Theorem 1, appears correct and the explicit U0, U1 in Eq. 27 are constructive and machine-checkable. If the application to Burgers held in full generality, the paper would provide a useful design principle: mapping stochastic classical algorithms onto LCU measurement outcomes to avoid postselection. The explicit construction and the derivation of necessary and sufficient conditions for two-operator LCU conjugation are valuable. However, the significance is substantially tempered because the LGCA simulation is only shown for computational-basis product states; the paper does not demonstrate that a smooth initial profile or any superposition of configurations can be evolved by the proposed circuit without altering the LGCA dynamics. The FDM negative result is also asserted rather than proved. As a result, the advertised 'unconditionally successful quantum simulation of nonlinearities' is currently supported only in a much narrower sense than the abstract suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (26) and following paragraph] The claim that column-phase modifications are irrelevant because the encoding is 'phase-independent' is only true for a single computational basis state at each site. If the register is in a superposition of configurations, the modified phases affect interference. For example, on (|01>+|10>)/√2, the operator C1' from Eq. (26) gives C1'|01> = |10> and C1'|10> = -|10>, so the superposition is annihilated and p1 = 0, whereas the classical LGCA would assign probability 1/2 to each outcome. The paper never proves that the state remains a product of basis states for realistic initial data or that ensemble averaging over basis-state runs reproduces Burgers dynamics. Since the unconditional-success claim rests on this assumption, the claim is unsupported for general amplitude-encoded or superposition initialization. Please either restrict the theorem to computational-basis trajectories and expla
  2. [Section 3.2, paragraph 'It is straightforward...'] The statement that 'no combination of Di and Dj is LCU-conjugated' is asserted without proof. The conditions in Eqs. (17) and (18) are concrete algebraic identities; the calculation for the three pairs (Df,Db), (Df,Dc), (Db,Dc) should be shown explicitly, or at least the key commutator/cross-term computation that fails. As written, this negative result—used as a second illustration of the framework—is unverifiable and should be either proved or removed.
  3. [Section 3.1, paragraph 'H-LCU allows...'] The claim that arbitrary probabilities p ≠ 1/2 are impossible is only sketched: 'For Eq. 18 we have in the first place that cos(2θ1)=0... This condition... brings the probabilities pi... to be the same.' This is not a derivation. Since the LGCA of [32] uses an arbitrary p that controls the viscosity, the restriction to p=1/2 is a substantive limitation of the construction. Please provide the explicit calculation showing that Eq. (18) forces θ1 = π/4 and that the resulting probabilities are equal for the constructed operators.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title/Abstract and Section 3.1] The paper uses 'Burger's equation' in Figure 4 caption and elsewhere; the correct possessive is 'Burgers' equation'.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eq. (23)] Please specify the basis ordering used for the 4×4 matrices (e.g., columns labeled |00>, |01>, |10>, |11>) and the row/column convention. The matrices are non-unitary, and the reader must infer the input/output orientation.
  3. [Section 2, Lemma 2] The expression for A0 and A1 in Eqs. (15)-(16) is stated without explicitly simplifying the global phases; a short derivation or a reference to the circuit equations would help. The reader's check suggests the algebra is correct, but the presentation is terse.
  4. [Section 3.1, Eq. (26)] The column-phase parameters α_j, β_j that lead to Eq. (26) are not listed. State the chosen values that satisfy Eqs. (24)-(25).
  5. [Table 1] In the 'This work' row, the space complexity is given as 'mN' but the text uses 2 qubits per site and one ancilla per site, giving O(3N). Clarify what m denotes and ensure the table entry matches the text.
  6. [Section 3.2, Eq. (31)] The sentence 'we verified the following results for periodic BC' is vague. Either include the verification in an appendix or omit the phrase.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the LCU construction and its success-probability claim are established by an internal theorem and an explicit operator construction; the cited Burgers LGCA is external, and the phase-independence gap is a correctness concern, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a constructive proof, not a fitted prediction. It defines LCU-conjugated operators (Definition 3, Lemma 1), derives necessary and sufficient conditions for two non-unitary operators to be implemented by a one-ancilla LCU (Theorem 1), and then explicitly constructs phase-modified collision operators C'_0 and C'_1 (Eq. 26) that satisfy those conditions, with unitaries U_0 and U_1 given in Eq. 27. The "unconditional success" statement follows from the theorem: both ancilla measurement outcomes correspond to valid operators and p_0+p_1=1. This is not circular because the theorem's conditions are derived from the LCU circuit itself, and the phase choices are design parameters chosen to satisfy those conditions, not parameters fitted to a target output. The connection between the LGCA and Burgers' equation is taken from the external reference [32], not from a self-citation. Self-citations [20], [28], and [34] are contextual references and are not load-bearing for the main derivation. The reviewer's concern about phase independence (Section 3.1, Eq. 26) is a legitimate correctness issue about the restricted domain of validity for superposition inputs, but it is not a circularity: the paper explicitly restricts to computational basis encoding and does not derive the simulation of arbitrary amplitude-encoded initial data from the phase-independence assumption. Therefore no step reduces to its own input by construction, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical degrees of freedom are introduced; the LCU-conjugated operators and pseudo-commutativity are mathematical constructions, not new entities. The main parameters introduced by hand are the column phases used to fit the operators to the LCU conditions.

free parameters (1)
  • Column phase parameters alpha_j, beta_j = alpha0=beta0+pi/2, alpha3=beta3+pi/2, alpha1+beta2=alpha2+beta1+pi; one valid set gives Eq. 26
    Hand-chosen phases used to force the LGCA collision operators into H-LCU form; without them the completeness/pseudo-commutativity conditions fail.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Projective measurement postulate of quantum mechanics
    Used in Lemma 1 to assert that LCU-conjugated operators form a probabilistically applied set.
  • domain assumption The Boghosian-Levermore lattice gas [32] converges to 1D Burgers' equation in the hydrodynamic limit
    The quantum algorithm inherits its claim to simulate Burgers entirely from this external result; no derivation is given in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Phase-independent encoding: relative phases in the collision matrices do not affect the simulated LGCA dynamics
    This is what makes the modified operators C'_0,C'_1 acceptable, and it is only argued for computational basis states, not proven for general initial states.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unconditionally successful quantum Time-Marching algorithm via LCU for nonlinear Burgers equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SMEGHFHH

@misc{pith2026260802130,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unconditionally successful quantum Time-Marching algorithm via LCU for nonlinear Burgers equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SMEGHFHH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02130}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Most recently proposed quantum algorithms for solving linear and nonlinear partial differential equations rely on non-unitary operations. These operations are typically implemented probabilistically, requiring postselection and thus increasing the computational cost. We show that quantum lattice gas algorithms enable unconditionally successful quantum simulation of nonlinearities, yielding, to our knowledge, the first quantum algorithm for Burgers equation whose time steps can be concatenated without probabilistic failure. The key idea is to exploit the correspondence between the stochasticity of quantum measurement in the linear combination of unitaries framework and the intrinsic randomness of the classical lattice gas algorithm. In doing so, we identify general properties that characterize probabilistic classical algorithms amenable to this time-marching formulation, and illustrate the approach with an additional application.

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

35 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Physical review letters103(15), 150502 (2009)

    Harrow, A.W., Hassidim, A., Lloyd, S.: Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations. Physical review letters103(15), 150502 (2009)

    2009

  2. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1202.5822 (2012)

    Childs, A.M., Wiebe, N.: Hamiltonian simulation using linear combinations of unitary operations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1202.5822 (2012)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    In: Proceedings of the Forty-sixth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp

    Berry, D.W., Childs, A.M., Cleve, R., Kothari, R., Somma, R.D.: Exponential improvement in precision for simulating sparse hamiltonians. In: Proceedings of the Forty-sixth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 283–292 (2014)

    2014

  4. [4]

    Quantum3, 163 (2019) 14

    Low, G.H., Chuang, I.L.: Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization. Quantum3, 163 (2019) 14

    2019

  5. [5]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp

    Gily´ en, A., Su, Y., Low, G.H., Wiebe, N.: Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics. In: Pro- ceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 193–204 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118(35), 2026805118 (2021)

    Liu, J.-P., Kolden, H.Ø., Krovi, H.K., Loureiro, N.F., Trivisa, K., Childs, A.M.: Efficient quantum algorithm for dissipative nonlinear differential equations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118(35), 2026805118 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.13969 (2022)

    Jin, S., Liu, N., Yu, Y.: Quantum simulation of partial differential equations via schrodingerisation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.13969 (2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Quantum8, 1563 (2024)

    Hu, J., Jin, S., Liu, N., Zhang, L.: Quantum circuits for partial differential equations via schr¨ odingerisation. Quantum8, 1563 (2024)

    2024

  9. [9]

    Computer Physics Communications309, 109498 (2025)

    Novikau, I., Joseph, I.: Quantum algorithm for the advection-diffusion equation and the koopman-von neumann approach to nonlinear dynamical systems. Computer Physics Communications309, 109498 (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.09939 (2025)

    Gan, Y., Alipanah, H., Cheng, J., Wu, Z., Li, G., Mendoza-Arenas, J.J., Givi, P., Malik, M.R., McDermott, B.J., Liu, J.: Provably efficient quantum algorithms for solving nonlinear differential equations using multiple bosonic modes coupled with qubits. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.09939 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.07155 (2025)

    Jennings, D., Korzekwa, K., Lostaglio, M., Sornborger, A.T., Subasi, Y., Wang, G.: Quantum algorithms for general nonlinear dynamics based on the carleman embedding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.07155 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Physical Review Research7(2), 023262 (2025)

    Bharadwaj, S.S., Sreenivasan, K.R.: Compact quantum algorithms for time- dependent differential equations. Physical Review Research7(2), 023262 (2025)

    2025

  13. [13]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.21033 (2025)

    Bharadwaj, S.S., Nadiga, B., Eidenbenz, S., Sreenivasan, K.R.: Quantum homo- topy algorithm for solving nonlinear pdes and flow problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.21033 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Quantum8, 1509 (2024)

    Lewis, D., Eidenbenz, S., Nadiga, B., Suba¸ sı, Y.: Limitations for quantum algorithms to solve turbulent and chaotic systems. Quantum8, 1509 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.03758 (2025)

    Jennings, D., Korzekwa, K., Lostaglio, M., Ashworth, R., Marsili, E., Rolston, S.: An end-to-end quantum algorithm for nonlinear fluid dynamics with bounded quantum advantage. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.03758 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    budinski

    Budinski, L.: Quantum algorithm for the advection–diffusion equation simu- lated with the lattice boltzmann method: Lj. budinski. Quantum Information Processing20(2), 57 (2021)

    2021

  17. [17]

    m¨ oller

    Schalkers, M.A., M¨ oller, M.: On the importance of data encoding in quantum 15 boltzmann methods: Ma schalkers, m. m¨ oller. Quantum Information Processing 23(1), 20 (2024)

    2024

  18. [18]

    npj Quantum Information (2025)

    Wang, B., Meng, Z., Zhao, Y., Yang, Y.: Quantum lattice boltzmann method for simulating nonlinear fluid dynamics. npj Quantum Information (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    Computers & Fluids286, 106476 (2025)

    Zamora, A.D.B., Budinski, L., Niemim¨ aki, O., Lahtinen, V.: Efficient quantum lattice gas automata. Computers & Fluids286, 106476 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.17303 (2026)

    Fonio, N., Sagaut, P., Di Molfetta, G.: Two-dimensional quantum lattice gas algorithm for anisotropic burger-like equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.17303 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Quantum Science and Technology10(3), 035039 (2025)

    Zecchi, A.A., Sanavio, C., Perotto, S., Succi, S.: Improved amplitude amplification strategies for the quantum simulation of classical transport problems. Quantum Science and Technology10(3), 035039 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    Quantum7, 955 (2023)

    Fang, D., Lin, L., Tong, Y.: Time-marching based quantum solvers for time- dependent linear differential equations. Quantum7, 955 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    Physical Review A112(1), 010401 (2025)

    Over, P., Bengoechea, S., Brearley, P., Laizet, S., Rung, T.: Quantum algorithm for the advection-diffusion equation by direct block encoding of the time-marching operator. Physical Review A112(1), 010401 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.09799 (2026)

    He, Y., Yu, Y., Yu, Y.: Time-marching representation based quantum algo- rithms for the lattice boltzmann model of the advection-diffusion equation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.09799 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    Physical Review A110(1), 012430 (2024)

    Brearley, P., Laizet, S.: Quantum algorithm for solving the advection equation using hamiltonian simulation. Physical Review A110(1), 012430 (2024)

    2024

  26. [26]

    Computer Physics Commu- nications, 109856 (2025)

    Wawrzyniak, D., Winter, J., Schmidt, S., Indinger, T., Janßen, C.F., Schramm, U., Adams, N.A.: Linearized quantum lattice-boltzmann method for the advection-diffusion equation using dynamic circuits. Computer Physics Commu- nications, 109856 (2025)

    2025

  27. [27]

    In: International Conference on Quantum Engineering Sciences and Technologies for Industry and Services, pp

    Bediche, M., Waveren, M., Ricot, D., Sagaut, P.: Fully quantum algorithm for the 1-dimensional linear lattice boltzmann method. In: International Conference on Quantum Engineering Sciences and Technologies for Industry and Services, pp. 264–273 (2025). Springer

    2025

  28. [28]

    Physical Review E112(3), 035302 (2025)

    Fonio, N., Sagaut, P., Budinski, L., Lahtinen, V.: Adaptive lattice-gas algorithm: Classical and quantum implementations. Physical Review E112(3), 035302 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    Physics of Fluids36(10) (2024) 16

    Esmaeilifar, E., Ahn, D., Myong, R.S.: Quantum algorithm for nonlinear burgers’ equation for high-speed compressible flows. Physics of Fluids36(10) (2024) 16

    2024

  30. [30]

    Entropy27(8), 871 (2025)

    Koukoutsis, E., Vahala, G., Soe, M., Hizanidis, K., Vahala, L., Ram, A.K.: Time-marching quantum algorithm for simulation of nonlinear lorenz dynamics. Entropy27(8), 871 (2025)

    2025

  31. [31]

    Cambridge university press, ??? (2010)

    Nielsen, M.A., Chuang, I.L.: Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge university press, ??? (2010)

    2010

  32. [32]

    In: Lattice Gas Methods For Partial Differential Equations, pp

    Boghosian, B.M., Levermore, C.D.: A cellular automaton for burgers’ equation. In: Lattice Gas Methods For Partial Differential Equations, pp. 483–496. CRC Press, ??? (2019)

    2019

  33. [33]

    Journal of Computa- tional Physics, 114595 (2025)

    Georgescu, C.A., Schalkers, M.A., M¨ oller, M.: Fully quantum lattice gas automata building blocks for computational basis state encodings. Journal of Computa- tional Physics, 114595 (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    Computers & Fluids299, 106688 (2025)

    Fonio, N., Sagaut, P., Di Molfetta, G.: Quantum collision circuit, quantum invari- ants and quantum phase estimation procedure for fluid dynamic lattice gas automata. Computers & Fluids299, 106688 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    Quantum Science and Technology11(2), 025015 (2026) 17

    Zylberman, J., Fredon, T., Loureiro, N.F., Debbasch, F.: Trotter-based quantum algorithm for solving transport equations with exponentially fewer time-steps. Quantum Science and Technology11(2), 025015 (2026) 17

    2026

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.