Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Improved Quantum Lattice Boltzmann Method for Advection-Diffusion Equations with a Linear Collision Model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An ancilla-free quantum lattice Boltzmann method replaces non-unitary collisions with local unitary rotations and removes per-loop tomography, claiming arbitrary numbers of time loops for advection-diffusion.

desk verdict Sound single-loop QLBM construction, but the 'any number of loops' claim fails because each loop post-selects with probability ≤3/4 and no amplification is provided. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01271 v1 pith:SXYRZ77U submitted 2025-04-18 quant-ph

Li Xu , Ming Li , Lei Zhang , Hai Sun , Jun Yao This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumlatticeBoltzmannmethodadvection-diffusionequationlinearcollisionmodelancilla-freecircuitlocalunitaryoperationsstatetomographyD2Q5
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 proposes an ancilla-free quantum lattice Boltzmann method (AFQLBM) for the advection-diffusion equation. The key move is to replace the non-unitary BGK collision with a short product of local controlled rotations on a small direction register, and to replace per-loop quantum state tomography with a classical post-processing routine that recovers macroscopic variables from measurement statistics and the known sum of the initial values. The authors claim the algorithm can be looped for an arbitrary number of time steps, advancing whenever the direction register collapses to all zeros, without ancilla qubits and without intermediate tomography. If that claim holds, AFQLBM lowers the per-loop circuit cost: for the two-dimensional five-velocity model (D2Q5) on an $M\times M$ grid the Toffoli count is $4\log^2 M + 8\log M$, an $O(\log M)$ reduction over earlier QLBM constructions. Numerical tests on one- and two-dimensional Gaussian hills agree with the classical lattice Boltzmann results.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the linear collision model: because the equilibrium distribution $f_\alpha^{\rm eq}$ is linear in $\phi$, the collision step reduces to local unitary operations on the direction register alone. For D2Q5 the direction register holds three qubits; controlled-$R_y$ rotations with angles fixed by the weights $\hat w_\alpha$ build the normalized state $\sum_\alpha \hat w_\alpha|\alpha\rangle\otimes|\phi_0\rangle$, after which cyclic shift operators $R$ and $L$ perform streaming under direction control. A layer of Hadamard gates implements pointwise addition of the shifted copies, and a classical routine converts shot counts into macroscopic variables using the initial sum $|\phi|_1$. The stated complexity benchmark is a per-loop Toffoli count of $4\log^2 M+8\log M$, where Toffoli gates, standard three-input reversible gates, serve as the cost unit.

What would settle it

Run the D2Q5 circuit for a Gaussian hill over T = 10 and T = 20 loops on a simulator, recording whether the direction register returns all zeros at every intermediate step. If the cumulative success rate tracks $(3/4)^T$, roughly 6% at T = 10, then the 'any number of loops' claim fails without amplification; the final macroscopic profile should also be compared against classical lattice Boltzmann values to test the tomography-free readout.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a linear equilibrium distribution function lets the entire collision step be implemented as local unitary rotations, $R_y$ and controlled-$R_y$ gates, that set the direction register to a superposition whose amplitudes are the weights $\hat w_\alpha = w_\alpha(1+e_\alpha\cdot \vec u/c_s^2)$. Streaming then shifts the position register conditioned on those direction states, producing a normalized combination $\sum_\alpha f_\alpha(x,1)$; applying Hadamard gates on the direction register concentrates the sum $\sum_\alpha f_\alpha(x,1)$ into the all-zero outcome. The paper argues that measuring this outcome gives the next loop's initial state, and that the macroscopic variable at any chosen step can be recovered from the initial sum plus the current measurement statistics, so no quantum state tomography is needed at intermediate loops. The authors support this with a per-loop probability bound between $1/4$ and $3/4$ and a claimed resource cost of $4\log^2 M+8\log M$ Toffoli gates per D2Q5 loop, versus $4\log^2 M+16\log M$ for earlier methods.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme's repeated-loop claim rests on the all-zero measurement of the direction register happening at every step, and only a single-step probability bound of at most 3/4 is given; the product over many steps is not analyzed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A QLBM solver can in principle run many advection-diffusion steps with only two registers, no ancilla qubit, and no state tomography between steps, reducing both qubit count and circuit depth.
  • The per-loop Toffoli count falls by $O(\log M)$ relative to prior ancilla-based constructions, a saving that grows with the lattice size.
  • Macroscopic variables at a given time step can be produced from current measurement statistics plus the initial sum, so intermediate classical readout is not part of the loop.
  • The D1Q3 and D2Q5 demonstrations indicate the construction is extendable to larger velocity sets and, as the authors state, toward incompressible Navier-Stokes and multiphase flow models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that its per-loop success bound $[1/4,3/4]$ applies to a single step; without amplitude amplification or a rewinding mechanism, the chance of completing $T$ loops is at most $(3/4)^T$, so 'arbitrary number of loops' would require an additional recovery strategy.
  • Algorithm 1's reconstruction from shot counts should accumulate finite-sampling error over loops; a direct simulator study of error versus loop count would quantify whether the claimed any-time readout remains accurate.
  • A natural extension is to feed the all-zero outcome through amplitude amplification, which could make the probabilistic loop advance near-deterministic while preserving the ancilla-free structure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an ancilla-free quantum lattice Boltzmann method (AFQLBM) for advection-diffusion equations. The scheme encodes the macroscopic field directly in a position register, applies a linear BGK collision with relaxation parameter ω = 1 via local controlled rotations on a direction register, performs direction-controlled streaming, and applies Hadamard gates to the direction register so that the all-zero outcome carries the sum of the streamed distributions. The authors claim that this permits an arbitrary number of time loops without quantum state tomography between steps, with a per-loop Toffoli count of 4 log² M + 8 log M for D2Q5. The paper includes qiskit simulations of Gaussian-hill advection-diffusion for D1Q3 and D2Q5 models and an analysis in Appendix C bounding the per-loop success probability of the all-zero direction outcome to the interval [1/4, 3/4].

Significance. If the multi-loop claim held, this would be a notable simplification of existing quantum lattice Boltzmann methods: no ancilla qubit, a purely local unitary collision operator, no per-loop quantum state tomography, and an O(log M) reduction in Toffoli count per loop compared with Refs. [16, 19]. The single-loop collision and streaming construction is coherent, the probability bound in Appendix C is a correct inequality for the stated normalization, and the qiskit comparisons provide a useful proof-of-principle for the single-loop evolution. However, the multi-loop capability is the headline contribution, and it is not established; the advertised complexity advantage over prior QLBM work is therefore not realized for more than one time step without an additional mechanism that the paper does not provide.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.A, Eq. (15), and Appendix C, Eq. (C5)] The claim that the algorithm 'can achieve any number of loops conditionally controlled by the measurement results in register q' is not supported. The only continuation mechanism described is measuring the direction register and keeping runs in which the outcome is the all-zero string; Eq. (15) and the following paragraph state that the collapsed state |φ0(x,1)> is obtained 'on the premise that the results are |00>'. Any other outcome is discarded. Appendix C bounds the probability of this per-loop event by p ∈ [1/4, 3/4] and reports p ≈ 0.72 in the simulations. The paper never analyzes the product over T loops and provides no amplitude amplification, rewinding, or partial-measurement gadget that would recover the failed branch. Since a non-zero measurement outcome destroys the component needed for the next time step, the probability of completing T loops is at most (3/4)^T and the expected number of fresh circuit runs is at least (4/3)^T; for T = 100 this is about 3 × 10^{-13}. The abstract and Section III.A statements about running an arbitrary number of loops without tomography are therefore not justified as stated.
  2. [Section V, Toffoli complexity analysis] The stated complexity of 4 log² M + 8 log M Toffoli gates per loop and the claimed O(log M) improvement over Refs. [16, 19] count only the per-loop circuit and omit the number of repetitions required by post-selection. Unless a mechanism is supplied to avoid discarding non-all-zero outcomes, the expected cost to reach T time steps is at least (4/3)^T times the per-loop cost, which is exponential in T for the multi-loop algorithm. The complexity comparison is therefore incomplete, and the central advantage over the prior multi-loop algorithms is not achieved.
  3. [Section IV, numerical simulations] The numerical validation does not report the cumulative success probability or the number of discarded runs for the multi-loop cases, even though the simulations are presented as evidence of feasibility for the time-marching algorithm. With the reported per-loop success probability of about 72%, five consecutive loops would be expected to succeed in only about 19% of fresh runs, and the displayed agreement between the 'quantum' and classical curves may be the result of conditioning on the successful all-zero measurement paths. Reporting success counts, a bound on the post-selected estimator error, or a comparison at a fixed total shot budget would be needed to substantiate the feasibility claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A and general text] There are several typographical errors, including 'The cillision operator' and 'the first qubut', which should be corrected to 'collision' and 'qubit', respectively.
  2. [Algorithm 1] The relationship between the measured counts S_i and the weights √S_i/(√S · S_all) is not explained; a sentence stating that the post-processing estimates |a_i|/Σ|a_i| from the square roots of empirical frequencies would clarify the method.
  3. [Appendix B] The control conventions for the streaming operators are described informally ('|10⟩ controlls direction 1'); spelling should be fixed and the mapping from each direction-register basis state to the corresponding streaming operator should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Equation (10) and state preparation] The reference for state preparation, Ref. [26], concerns efficiently integrable probability distributions; arbitrary initial fields require a more general amplitude-encoding routine whose cost should be included in the resource estimate.
  5. [Figures 3 and 4] The figures compare quantum and classical LBM results, but the text does not state the exact number of shots used beyond a multiple of the lattice size; reporting shot counts and statistical error bars would make the comparison more quantitative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the AFQLBM derivation is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs; the multi-loop post-selection issue is a soundness concern, not a circularity.

full rationale

The quantum circuit is derived directly from the standard lattice Boltzmann update with ω=1 and the linear equilibrium distribution (Eqs. (4), (5), (7), (8)); the collision angles in Appendix B are computed explicitly from the weights ŵα, and no fitted parameter is introduced to force the advertised result. The numerical comparisons to classical LBM are validation, not fitting, and the Toffoli-count estimate is an independent circuit-level comparison against Refs. [16,19]. Algorithm 1 estimates macroscopic variables from measurement statistics and the initial 1-norm; this is justified by mass conservation rather than by assuming the output, so it is not circular. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the cited prior QLBM works are by other authors and serve as baselines, not as authority for the present claims. The real weakness is in the multi-loop claim: Appendix C bounds the single-step post-selection probability by [1/4, 3/4] (Eq. C5), and the paper does not analyze the T-loop product or provide amplitude amplification/rewinding, so the probability of completing T loops is at most (3/4)^T. This is a correctness/efficiency gap in the 'any number of loops' claim (Section III.A), but it is not a circularity: the single-loop derivation does not assume the multi-loop conclusion. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The free parameters are the relaxation parameter omega=1, which restricts the algorithm to a pure-equilibrium collision, and the shot count used in simulations. The axioms are standard LBM background together with unstated domain assumptions about mass conservation, nonnegativity, and efficient initial-state preparation.

free parameters (2)
  • collision relaxation parameter omega = 1
    Chosen by hand throughout. It makes the collision purely an equilibrium re-weighting, enabling the unitary local collision. With omega != 1 the proposed unitary collision and the subsequent derivation do not hold, so the method only covers the diffusion coefficient fixed by Eq. (6).
  • number of measurement shots S = 10^4 per lattice cell
    Chosen for the simulations without an error analysis. The estimator in Algorithm 1 depends on S, and no accuracy-driven selection or concentration bound is provided.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Total mass sum of phi is conserved under periodic-boundary advection-diffusion, so |phi(x,0)|_1 can scale reconstructed amplitudes at later times.
    Algorithm 1 assigns |phi(x,0)|_1 to later distributions; this holds for conservative advection-diffusion with no source and periodic boundaries, but it is not stated as a premise.
  • domain assumption The initial state can be prepared efficiently via Grover-Rudolph amplitude encoding for the initial phi(x,0).
    Section III.A cites [26] for encoding; for arbitrary initial data this preparation is not efficient, so the complexity claim is conditional on the initial-state structure.
  • domain assumption The weights w_hat_alpha and the evolving distributions remain nonnegative, so the Cauchy bound and the success-probability interval in Appendix C apply.
    The proof that (f0+f1+f2)^2 >= 1 relies on nonnegativity of f_i; this is physical for positive initial data and subsonic advection but is not stated as a condition.
  • standard math The Chapman-Enskog relation Eq. (6) connecting chi and tau is valid for the lattice and collision model.
    Used to set diffusion coefficients in the simulations; standard LBM background.
  • domain assumption Quantum measurements are independent and the estimator sqrt(S_i/S) is treated as the amplitude of each site.
    Algorithm 1 ignores finite-sample bias in sqrt(S_i/S); no concentration bound is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improved Quantum Lattice Boltzmann Method for Advection-Diffusion Equations with a Linear Collision Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SXYRZ77U

@misc{pith2026250501271,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improved Quantum Lattice Boltzmann Method for Advection-Diffusion Equations with a Linear Collision Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SXYRZ77U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01271}
}
abstract

Quantum computing has made tremendous progress in recent years, providing potentialities for breaking the bottleneck of computing power in the field of scientific computing, like computational fluid dynamics. To reduce computational costs and achieve an acceleration, we propose an ancilla free quantum lattice Boltzmann method for advection-diffusion equations that fully leverages the parallelism of quantum computing. More significantly, there is no need to perform quantum state tomography in each previous loop, if the macroscopic variables for a certain loop is needed. The non-unitary collision operators are replaced by the unique local unitary operations, and the removal of ancilla qubit greatly diminishes the complexity of the quantum circuit. The numerical simulations of the $D_1Q_3$ and $D_2Q_5$ models have confirmed the feasibility of the proposed algorithm.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01271 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The circuit diagram of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The circuit diagram of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Numerical results running on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Numerical comparison results of the quantum (‘o’) an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Numerical comparison results for the difference met [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Local unitary operations for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [21]

    A. W. Harrow , A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Quan- tum algorithm for linear systems of equations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 150502 (2009)

    work page 2009

  2. [22]

    John, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond

    P . John, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum 2,79 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [1]

    In addition, we have designe d a unique collision operator for linear equilibrium distrib ution function—which only requires local unitary operations(LU O) to achieve the goal

    specifically for calcu- lating macroscopic variables. In addition, we have designe d a unique collision operator for linear equilibrium distrib ution function—which only requires local unitary operations(LU O) to achieve the goal. The numerical simulations conducted in qiskit package not only confirmed the feasibility of the algo- rithm, but also laid the f...

    work page

  4. [2]

    Calculate √Si/ √ S and the summation Sall of all√Si/ √ S

    work page

  5. [3]

    into Eq.(2) and arrang- ing it, a more concise form of LBM can be obtained fα(x +eα∆ t,t + ∆ t) = (1 −ω)fα(x,t ) +ωf eq α , (5) The above equation is the working horse of LBM for the dif- fusion and advection-diffusion problem. The common terminology used in LBM for the dimen- sion of the problem and the number of velocity directions is DnQm, where n = 1,...

    work page

  6. [4]

    Record the number of measurements for each phase Si, i = 0, 1, ..., M − 1

    work page

  7. [5]

    Calculate the weight of each phase √Si/ ( √ S · Sall)

    work page

  8. [6]

    Assign |φ (x, 0)|1 to each phase according the weight to obtain φ (x, 1). 4 FIG. 2. The circuit diagram of D2Q5 model for modified quantum lattice Boltzmann method. And these operators are controlled by the phases of ˆwα,α = 1, 2, 3, 4. The state after streaming is |φ2(x, 0)⟩ = ˆw0|0⟩|φ0⟩ + ∑ 4 α=1 ˆwα|α⟩Sα|φ0⟩ √ ˆw2 0 + ˆw2 1 + ˆw2 2 + ˆw2 3 + ˆw2 4 = ∑ 4...

    work page

Show all 40 references
  1. [7]

    Shor, Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factoriz a- tion and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer, SIAM Journal on Computing, 26, 1484(1997)

    P . Shor, Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factoriz a- tion and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer, SIAM Journal on Computing, 26, 1484(1997)

    1997

  2. [8]

    and the results reveal that the error of the difference method is significantly smaller. VI. CONCLUSION AND PROSPECT The main contribution of this manuscript is to devise an an- cilla free quantum algorithm of the lattice Boltzmann metho d for solving advection-diffusion equati...

  3. [9]

    The cilli- sion operator (H ⊗I)(|0⟩⟨0|a ⊗C1 + |1⟩⟨1|a ⊗C2)(H ⊗I) (A2) whereC1 =A +i √ I −A2,C2 =A −i √ I −A2

    The diagonal matrix A = diag(0.75, 0.75, 0.75, 0.75, 0.25, 0.25, 0.25, 0.25). The cilli- sion operator (H ⊗I)(|0⟩⟨0|a ⊗C1 + |1⟩⟨1|a ⊗C2)(H ⊗I) (A2) whereC1 =A +i √ I −A2,C2 =A −i √ I −A2. Following the collision step, the initial quantum state |φ0⟩ has evolved 6 into |φ1⟩ =(H ...

  4. [10]

    Appendix C: Probability Analysis In this section, we will discuss the probability of register q collapsing to 0 string through measurement

    for implementing local unitary oper- ations for both models in qiskit package. Appendix C: Probability Analysis In this section, we will discuss the probability of register q collapsing to 0 string through measurement. Before taking measurement on the q register, we have the f...

  5. [11]

    (C4) Obviously, we have (f0 +f1 +f2) ≥ 1, giving that 1 4 ≤ (f0 +f1 +f2)2 4 ≤ 3

  6. [12]

    The above is a rigorous mathematical derivation, and when we combine it with practical situations, we will find that some situations may not occur

    (C5) Hence we can conclude that the probability locates in [ 1 4, 3 4 ]. The above is a rigorous mathematical derivation, and when we combine it with practical situations, we will find that some situations may not occur. For example, when the probability is 1 4 , one of f0, f1,...

  7. [13]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. Chuang. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 2002)

    2002

  8. [14]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, et al. , Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature 574, 505-510 (2019)

    2019

  9. [15]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, et al. , Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms. REVIEWS OF MODERN PHYSICS 94 (2022)

    2022

  10. [16]

    Boixo, S

    S. Boixo, S. V . Isakov, V . N. Smelyanskiy, et al. , Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices. Nature Physics 14, 595–600 (2018)

    2018

  11. [17]

    Schuld and N

    M. Schuld and N. Killoran, Quantum machine learning in fe a- ture Hilbert spaces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 040504 (2019)

    2019

  12. [18]

    Havl´ ıˇ cek, A

    V . Havl´ ıˇ cek, A. D. C´ orcoles, K. Temme, A. W. Har- row, A. Kandala, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Su- pervised learning with quantum-enhanced feature spaces, Nature 567, 209-212 (2019)

    2019

  13. [19]

    Wawrzyniak, J

    D. Wawrzyniak, J. Winter, S. Schmidt, T. Indinger, C. F. Janßen, U. Schramm, and N. A. Adams, A quantum algorithm for the lattice-Boltzmann method advection-diffusion equ ation, Computer Physics Communications 306, 109373(2024)

    2024

  14. [20]

    L. K. Grover, Quantum Mechanics Helps in Searching for a Needle in a Haystack, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 325 (1997)

    1997

  15. [23]

    C.-Y . Lu, Y . Cao, C.-Z. Peng, and J.-W. Pan, Micius quantum experiments in space. REVIEWS OF MODERN PHYSICS 94 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    A. A. Mohamad, Lattice Boltzmann Method(Fundamentals and Engineering Applications with Computer Codes)

  17. [25]

    Benzi, S

    R. Benzi, S. Succi, M. V ergassola, The lattice Boltzman n equa- tion: theory and applications, Phys. Rep. 222, 145(1992)

    1992

  18. [26]

    Chen, and D

    S. Chen, and D. D. Doolen, Lattice Boltzmann Method for Fluid Flows, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 30:329-64(1998)

    1998

  19. [27]

    Todorova and R

    B.N. Todorova and R. Steijl, Quantum algo- rithm for the collisionless Boltzmann equation. Journal of Computational Physics 409, (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Budinski, Quantum algorithm for the advection-diff usion equation simulated with the lattice Boltzmann method

    L. Budinski, Quantum algorithm for the advection-diff usion equation simulated with the lattice Boltzmann method. Quantum Inf Process 20, 57 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Budinski, Quantum algorithm for the Navier- Stokes equations by using the streamfunction-vorticity formulation and the lattice Boltzmann method

    L. Budinski, Quantum algorithm for the Navier- Stokes equations by using the streamfunction-vorticity formulation and the lattice Boltzmann method. International Journal of Quantum Information 20, 2150039 ( 2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Itani, and S

    W. Itani, and S. Succi, Analysis of Carleman Linearizat ion of Lattice Boltzmann, Fluids, 7, 24(2022)

    2022

  23. [32]

    Itani, K

    W. Itani, K. R. Sreenivasan, and S. Succi, Quantumalgor ithm for lattice Boltzmann (QALB) simulation of incompressible flu- ids. Physics of Fluids 36, 017112 (2024)

    2024

  24. [33]

    Wawrzyniak, J

    D. Wawrzyniak, J. Winter, S. Schmidt, T. Indinger, C. F.Janßen, U. Schramm, and N. A. Adams, Unitary Quantum Algorithm for the Lattice-Boltzmann method.arXiv:2405.13391v3

    arXiv

  25. [34]

    Kocherla, A

    S. Kocherla, A. Adams, Z. Song, A. Alexeev, and S. H. Bryngelson, A two-circuit approach to reducing quan- tum resources for the quantum lattice Boltzmann method. arXiv:2401.12248v2

    arXiv

  26. [35]

    S. Succi,W. Itani, K.Sreenivasan, and R. Steijl, Quan- tum computing for fluids: Where do we stand? Europhysics Letters, 144, 10001(2023)

    2023

  27. [36]

    D. W. Berry, High-order quantum algo- rithm for solving linear differential equations. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 47: 105 301(2014)

    2014

  28. [37]

    Demirdjian, D

    R. Demirdjian, D. Gunlycke, C. A. Reynolds, et al., V ariational quantum solutions to the advec- tion–diffusion equation for applications in fluid dynam- ics. Quantum Information Process 21, 322 (2022)

    2022

  29. [38]

    Grover and T

    L. Grover and T. Rudolph, Creating superpositions that correspond to efficiently integrable probability distribu tions. arXiv:quant-ph/0208112

    arXiv

  30. [39]

    Y . Sato, R. Kondo, S. Koide, H. Takamatsu, and N. Imoto, V ariational quantum algorithm based on the min- imum potential energy for solving the Poisson equation. PHYSICAL REVIEW A 104,052409(2021)

    2021

  31. [40]

    Huang, R

    HY . Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many pr op- erties of a quantum system from very few measurements. Nature Physics 16, 1050-1057 (2020)

    2020

  32. [104]

    We profoundly investigate this issue when conduct ing the complexity and feasibility analysis of the algorithm in the next section

    The issue that must be mentioned is that we use ∆ φ in- stead of directly using φ for calculation in the numerical sim- ulation process, in order to obtain more accurate calculati on results. We profoundly investigate this issue when conduct ing the complexity and feasibility ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.