Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 35 references

An end-to-end quantum algorithm, QuPIV, performs Particle Image Velocimetry's displacement estimation via two-dimensional quantum Fourier cross-correlation and contracted amplitude amplification, reproducing a benchmark flow's velocity fiel

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 04:37 UTC pith:XHLYMY5X

load-bearing objection Worth a serious referee: a coherent and candid end-to-end quantum PIV pipeline, but the contracted amplitude amplification it rests on is asserted rather than proven, so the end-to-end claim is conditional. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13641 v1 pith:XHLYMY5X submitted 2026-07-15 quant-ph physics.flu-dyn

The potential of quantum computers for Particle Image Velocimetry

Philipp Pfeffer , Theo K\"aufer , Julia Ingelmann , Christian Cierpka , J\"org Schumacher This is my paper
classification quant-ph physics.flu-dyn
keywords quantum algorithmparticle image velocimetrycross-correlationquantum Fourier transformamplitude amplificationquantum state preparationsub-pixel displacement estimationvelocity field measurement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper claims that the displacement-estimation step of Particle Image Velocimetry—the repeated cross-correlation of image pairs that yields local velocity vectors—can be run end to end on a quantum computer. The authors assemble a pipeline: sparse binary image preparation, a two-dimensional quantum Fourier cross-correlation with complex conjugation, a cNOT-based sorting step, and a contracted form of amplitude amplification that cuts the circuit depth by marking the ground state on only one of the two image registers. They validate it on experimental images of a rotating flow with known ground truth, reporting peak-position errors below 1 pixel for 99.9% of interrogation windows and predicted processing errors below 10^-2 pixels. If the claims hold, PIV's massive load of repeated correlations becomes a candidate quantum workload, and the contracted-amplification idea generalizes as a resource-saving tool for any amplitude-amplification circuit.

Core claim

The central claim is that the cross-correlation map underlying PIV can be produced by a quantum circuit whose only nonlinear step—the component-wise spectral product—is handled by loading the two images into separate registers and using the tensor-product structure itself. After two-dimensional QFTs and complex conjugation of register B's spectrum, the circuit sorts the pairwise products with cNOTs so that an inverse QFT on register A yields the correlation map whenever register B is in |0>. The paper's main theoretical contribution is contracted amplitude amplification: replacing the full ground-state projector over all qubits with a projector S_ref on the B register alone, justified by the

What carries the argument

Contracted amplitude amplification, denoted S_ref, is the central mechanism: it replaces the 4n-qubit ground-state projector S0 with a projector that marks only the ground state of the B register, so the forward and inverse base circuits need not re-prepare register A in each query. The formal identity carries the argument: because the sorting cNOTs permute elements on B only, the amplified state splits into 2^kappa independent local problems with local amplitudes c_k sin((2r+1)theta_k), where the c_k reduce to the spectral magnitudes |A_hat_k| and |B_hat_k|. This gives an explicit error model for the processing stage and is what makes the end-to-end circuit depth tractable. The supporting p

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that contracting the ground-state projector to the B register keeps the two registers effectively decoupled during amplification, so the local-angle decomposition and the spectrum-based error prediction stay valid; if residual correlations between registers A and B persist, both the gate savings and the error estimates collapse.

What would settle it

Run the complete QuPIV circuit at the largest size a full statevector simulator can handle (for example N=8, 12 qubits) and compare the measured amplified correlation amplitudes against the prediction of Eq. (15) using the same input spectra. A deviation larger than the Monte-Carlo sampling error—or a change in B-register target amplitudes when register A is measured—would show that the decoupling of registers A and B inside contracted amplification does not hold, breaking both the gate-reduction claim and the error model. A direct hardware test on a few qubits with the same comparison would s

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

If this is right

  • QuPIV recovers the velocity field of a rotating benchmark flow in agreement with both the analytical solution and classical correlation-based PIV, with no systematic deviations from the ground truth.
  • With 15 contracted amplification queries and 500 samples per correlation map, 99.9% of all peak-position errors remain below 1 pixel; the predicted processing error is below 10^-2 pixels for the median and 5–95% range.
  • Larger interrogation windows (edge length 128 pixels or more) are more favorable: half as many active pixels suffice for sub-pixel accuracy, about 100 measurement shots are enough, and errors under contracted amplification remain consistently low.
  • The base-circuit success probability scales as 1/N^2, so the optimal number of amplification queries grows linearly with image edge length, and a query count found for one image is reusable for similar subsequent images.
  • The contracted-amplification error model (built from Eq. 14 and Eq. 15) predicts processing errors without simulating deep full circuits, which becomes important as image sizes grow beyond classical simulation reach.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the binary sparse input removes the classical FFT advantage (the paper itself notes all pair-wise particle shifts can be enumerated classically), the practical payoff of QuPIV would have to come from a constant-factor speedup over many repeated interrogation-window correlations, not from asymptotic scaling—a hardware benchmark would need to show this.
  • The decoupling that justifies contracted amplification is an architectural claim; on real devices, residual crosstalk or imperfect cNOTs could reintroduce A-B correlations. A small hardware experiment comparing Eq. (15) predictions with measured peak probabilities would be the natural next test.
  • The same pattern—sparse encoding, Fourier-domain correlation, and sampling only the peak—carries over to other image-registration and template-matching problems whose output is a single displacement or match location, not a full correlation map.
  • Contracting S_G instead of S_0 is left open; if a state preparation ended with local row/column operations, the paper's own reasoning suggests the QFTs and cNOTs inside U†S_GU could cancel, further reducing circuit depth.

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 / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes QuPIV, an end-to-end quantum algorithm for estimating particle-image displacements in Particle Image Velocimetry. The pipeline is: (i) binarize each interrogation window by selecting the N largest-intensity pixels; (ii) prepare zero-mean sparse states on two quantum registers A and B; (iii) implement 2D cross-correlation via QFT, complex-conjugated QFT, cNOT-based sorting, and inverse QFT; (iv) apply a modified amplitude-amplification scheme called 'contracted amplitude amplification'; and (v) sample the correlation map and locate the peak with three-point interpolation. The authors validate the approach on case F of the 4th PIV Challenge, comparing against the analytical solution and the classical OpenPIV package. They report that, with 15 contracted amplification queries and 500 samples, 99.9% of peak position errors are below 1 pixel, and that the processing error is below 10^-2 pixels. The central theoretical claim is that contracted amplitude amplification—replacing the all-qubit ground-state projector S0 by a projector S_ref on register B—decouples the amplification into 2^κ independent branches, enabling simulation of the processing error without running the full 24-qubit circuit.

Significance. The problem is well motivated, and the paper is unusually complete in treating the input, processing, and output stages of a quantum algorithm for an industrially relevant classical task. The circuit-level design is concrete, the statistical treatment of input, output, and processing errors is thoughtful, and the use of a well-known experimental benchmark (4th PIV Challenge, case F) gives the work a clear falsifiable target. The claimed gate reduction via contracted amplitude amplification, if rigorously justified, could also be of broader interest to amplitude-amplification applications. However, the central theoretical assertion—the decoupling of the amplification into independent register-A branches—is not proved in the main text, and the paper's headline numerical claims depend on that assertion. The significance is therefore conditional on resolving the correctness of Section 3.4.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.4, Eqs. (14)-(15)] The contracted-amplification analysis is the load-bearing part of the paper, but the key relation is not established. In the proposed use-case, S_ref and S_G both act on register B and both mark the B=|0> subspace; hence the iteration is U S_ref U† S_G = R_{U(T)} R_T, not the standard Grover iteration R_{U|0>} R_T. The statement that 'the state on register A remains unaffected' is insufficient: the cNOTs entangle A and B, QFT_A does not commute with the cNOTs, and U is not block-diagonal in the A basis. The paper defers the proof to the Supplementary Note and states only 'we find it also to hold if the amplification can be decoupled'. Please provide a full derivation of Eqs. (14)-(15), or a small full-circuit simulation that directly verifies the predicted branch-wise rotation and the formulas c_k=|A_k|, sin(theta_k)=|B_k|.
  2. [4, Fig. 4(c)] The processing-error curve in Fig. 4(c) is computed from Eqs. (14)-(15), not from a simulation of the 24-qubit contracted-amplification circuit. Since Eq. (15) is precisely the relation whose validity is at issue, this does not constitute an independent validation. The claims of a sub-10^-2 pixel processing error and of end-to-end viability therefore rest on an untested assumption. A full simulation for at least one representative interrogation window (or a formally derived error bound) is needed to support Fig. 4(c).
  3. [1 and 4] The phrase 'end-to-end quantum algorithm' and the numerical statement '99.9% of all peak position errors remain below 1 pixel' go beyond what is actually demonstrated. The paper simulates components separately—state preparation, sampling, and the predicted processing error—but does not report a full end-to-end circuit simulation or a hardware run. If the three error models are combined, the headline result is conditional on all three being correct. The authors should state explicitly which parts were simulated end-to-end and which were assembled from component models, and should qualify the abstract and Introduction accordingly.
minor comments (7)
  1. [3.1] The thresholding iteration is stated to terminate within 4N^2 comparisons 'on our test data', and the greedy permutation heuristics are said to 'always yield' a valid circuit. These are empirical claims; a worst-case bound or a discussion of possible failure modes would be useful.
  2. [3.2] The complex-conjugated QFT ('QFT*') is a key step. Please give an explicit circuit identity or a concise derivation, since this operation is less standard than the inverse QFT.
  3. [Data Availability] The statement that code and data 'will be provided in an open-access format once this work is accepted' prevents independent verification. Please make the code and data available with the submission, at least to reviewers.
  4. [4, Fig. 3] The 13×13 vector field in Fig. 3(b) is a decimation of the 121×121 field; please specify the decimation rule (e.g., every 10th vector) and indicate whether any smoothing was applied.
  5. [Notation] The convention N=2^n, with an additional ancilla qubit per dimension for linear cross-correlation, should be stated in one place with a consistent notation. The current text switches between n and n+1 qubits per edge in a way that is easy to misread.
  6. [Introduction, typo] There is a typo in the Introduction: 'classical comuputing' should read 'classical computing'.
  7. [General] Several key derivations (state-preparation permutation details, the decoupling proof, and the sampling analysis) are deferred to Supplementary Notes that were not included with the manuscript. These should be made available to reviewers, or the essential steps should be moved into the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: QuPIV's outputs are forward computations from input spectra and external PIV challenge data, not fitted or self-referential reconstructions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. State preparation builds a sparse zero-mean encoding directly from the N brightest pixel positions with closed-form rotation angles (phi1, phi2), not from the displacement to be measured. The 2D cross-correlation is implemented as the standard identity C_map = F^{-1}{F(A)⊙F*(B)} via QFTs, a cNOT sort, and an inverse QFT; the peak position is read out from the resulting map. The contracted-amplification parameters in Eqs. (14)-(15) are computed forward from the input spectra Ahat_k and Bhat_k (c_k=|Ahat_k|, sin(theta_k)=|Bhat_k|), and the query count is selected to reach a fixed 0.5 target amplitude, not to match the known displacement. The sub-10^-2-pixel processing error in Fig. 4(c) is therefore an analytical forward estimate, and the 99.9%-below-1-pixel claim is a Monte-Carlo sampling statement consistent with the 1/sqrt(M) law. The only caveat is the unproven decoupling assumption behind Eq. (14), which is a correctness/rigor risk rather than a circular reduction. Self-citations [17] and [18] are implementation details (multidimensional QFT, a comment on a cited convolution algorithm) and do not carry the central claim by themselves.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on one structural assumption (decoupling of contracted amplification, Section 3.4), one set of empirically guaranteed heuristics (N-largest selection and permutation-circuit construction, Section 3.1), the domain assumption that binarization preserves the peak, and standard mathematics (cross-correlation theorem, amplitude amplification theory). No constants are fitted to ground truth: query counts and sample numbers are data-adaptive parameters computed or chosen to reach stated error targets. No new physical entities are introduced; the contracted projector S_ref is an algorithm design with only in-paper verification.

free parameters (4)
  • Active binary pixels N (binarization threshold) = 64 for the experimental evaluation; 32-256 in synthetic scans
    The input images are reduced to the N brightest pixels at uniform amplitude. N=64 was chosen from the Fig. 4a error curve where the input error plateaus and peaks remain identifiable; fewer pixels degrade the error rapidly. Data-adaptive design choice, not derived from first principles.
  • Number of contracted amplification queries = 15 (experimental binary), 14 (synthetic binary), 11 (original images)
    Queries are chosen per data set to bring the success amplitude as close as possible to the 0.5 target before a final regular query. Computed from the spectra via Eq. (15), not fitted to ground-truth displacements, but data-dependent rather than an independently derived constant.
  • Measurement samples M = 500 in the main evaluation
    Chosen to make the sampling error small 'without further post-processing'; the 1/sqrt(M) scaling is standard Monte Carlo theory, but the specific value is a hand choice. The paper notes M=100 suffices for N>=128 images.
  • Target success amplitude after contracted amplification = 0.5
    The pipeline amplifies with contracted queries until the success amplitude reaches 0.5, then one regular query (r=1, theta=sin^-1(0.5)) completes to unit probability. 0.5 is a hand-picked operating point balancing error and query count.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Amplitude amplification theory: success amplitude after r queries is sin((2r+1)theta) with theta set by the initial target amplitude
    Section 3.3, Eq. (12); standard Grover/Brassard-Hoyer framework, cited as [16,30,31].
  • standard math Cross-correlation theorem: C_map = F^{-1}(F(A) ⊙ F*(B))
    Section 3.2, Eq. (9); standard convolution/correlation theorem.
  • domain assumption Decoupling of contracted amplitude amplification: with S_ref on register B, the global state splits into 2^kappa independent local problems with angles theta_k (Eq. 14), and register A is unaffected by the cNOT-based sorting
    Section 3.4, Eqs. (14)-(15). The entire processing-error model and the gate-reduction claim rest on this structural assumption, argued from circuit architecture and checked at simulator scale, not proven at the 24-qubit scale.
  • ad hoc to paper The N-largest-pixel thresholding iteration terminates within 4N^2 comparisons and the greedy permutation-circuit heuristics (column splitting, control aggregation) always yield a valid state-prep circuit
    Section 3.1: 'On our test data, we always find the N largest elements with less than 4N^2 comparisons.' No worst-case guarantee is given; a pathological particle layout could break the heuristic.
  • domain assumption Binarization with N active pixels preserves the correlation peak position with tolerable bias
    Section 4, Fig. 4a; empirically characterized for PIV challenge data. The paper itself calls image reduction 'the central error source of the algorithm' (Discussion).
  • domain assumption Sub-pixel peak extraction by three-point interpolation is sufficiently unbiased at the pixel scales considered
    Section 3, 'standard three-point interpolation [25]'; standard PIV practice.
invented entities (1)
  • Contracted ground-state projector S_ref (S0 restricted to register B) no independent evidence
    purpose: Marks the ground state on the 2n qubits of register B instead of all 4n qubits, so that U† in each amplification query need not recompute register A's preparation and QFTs, cutting the gate count.
    A new algorithmic operator, not a physical entity. Its behavior is analyzed in Eqs. (14)-(15) and verified only by in-paper circuit simulations on a 40-qubit simulator plus analytic error predictions; no external falsifiable handle (e.g., hardware experiment or an independent implementation) is provided.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14561 in / 30816 out tokens · 294917 ms · 2026-08-02T04:37:55.828291+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) is the prime image-processing technique to measure and visualize velocity fields of laminar and turbulent flows. The velocity field vectors are obtained with sub-pixelaccuracy by analyzing cross-correlations, empowered by Fast Fourier Transforms (FFT). Here, we present a quantum algorithm with multidimensional quantum Fourier Transforms, termed Quantum-based PIV (QuPIV), to replace the classical computation of up to millions of velocity vectors. Our end-to-end quantum algorithm includes a novel state preparation, modified amplitude amplification, and the output extraction. We enhance amplitude amplification by a contracted ground-state projector, which allows a significant reduction of the number of gates in the quantum circuit. We justify the end-to-end capability with numerical studies on all stages of the algorithm on both synthetic and experimental data.

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 · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    California Technical Pub (1997)

    Smith, S.W.: The Scientist and Engineer’s Guide to Digital Signal Processing. California Technical Pub (1997)

    1997

  2. [2]

    Geophysics30, 281–283 (1965)

    Byerly, P.E.: Convolution filtering of gravity and magnetic maps. Geophysics30, 281–283 (1965)

    1965

  3. [3]

    Raffel, M., K¨ ahler, C.J., Kompenhans, J., Scarano, F., Wereley, S.T., Willert, C.E.: Par- ticle Image Velocimetry: A Practical Guide, 3rd ed. edn. Springer, Cham (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    Cambridge University Press (2011)

    Westerweel, J., Adrian, R.J.: Particle Image Velocimetry. Cambridge University Press (2011)

    2011

  5. [5]

    Proceedings of the IEEE 86, 2278–2324 (1998)

    LeCun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., Haffner, P.: Gradient-based learning applied to doc- ument recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE 86, 2278–2324 (1998)

    1998

  6. [6]

    Hayashi, E., White, S.D.M.: Understand- ing the halo-mass and galaxy-mass cross- correlation functions. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.388, 2–14 (2008)

    2008

  7. [7]

    Zuo, H.-M., Qiu, J., Li, F.-F.: An improved cross-correlation method for efficient clouds forecasting. Theor. Appl. Climatol.155, 6491–6505 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    In: Inter- national Conference on Advances in Comput- ing, Control, and Telecommunication Tech- nologies, pp

    Sarvaiya, J.N., Patnaik, S., Bombaywala, S.: Image registration by template matching using normalized cross-correlation. In: Inter- national Conference on Advances in Comput- ing, Control, and Telecommunication Tech- nologies, pp. 819–822 (2009). IEEE

    2009

  9. [9]

    Farmer, S.F., Halliday, D.M., Conway, B.A., Stephens, J.A., Rosenberg, J.R.: A review of recent applications of cross-correlation methodologies to human motor unit record- ing. J. Neurosci. Meth.74, 175–187 (1997)

    1997

  10. [10]

    K¨ ahler, C.J., Astarita, T., Vlachos, P.P., Sakakibara, J., Hain, R., Discetti, S., La Foy, R., Cierpka, C.: Main results of the 4th Inter- national PIV Challenge. Exp. Fluids57, 1–71 (2016)

    2016

  11. [11]

    K¨ ahler, C.J., Scharnowski, S., Cierpka, C.: On the resolution limit of digital particle image velocimetry. Exp. Fluids52, 1629– 1639 (2012)

    2012

  12. [12]

    Optics and Lasers in Engineering135, 106185 (2020)

    Scharnowski, S., K¨ ahler, C.J.: Particle image velocimetry - classical operating rules from today’s perspective. Optics and Lasers in Engineering135, 106185 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    Westerweel, J., Geelhoed, P.F., Lindken, R.: Single-pixel resolution ensemble correlation for micro-PIV applications. Exp. Fluids, 375– 384 (2004)

    2004

  14. [14]

    Scharnowski, S., Hain, R., K¨ ahler, C.J.: Reynolds stress estimation up to single-pixel resolution using PIV-measurements. Exp. Fluids52, 985–1002 (2011)

    2011

  15. [15]

    Sciacchitano, A., Scarano, F., Wieneke, B.: Multi-frame pyramid correlation for time- resolved PIV. Exp. Fluids53, 1087–1105 (2012)

    2012

  16. [16]

    Ramezani, M., Nikaeen, M., Farman, F., Ashrafi, S.M., Bahrampour, A.: Quantum multiplication algorithm based on the convo- lution theorem. Phys. Rev. A108, 052405 (2023) 14

    2023

  17. [17]

    arXiv:2301.13835 (2023)

    Pfeffer, P.: Multidimensional Quantum Fourier Transformation. arXiv:2301.13835 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Quantum multi- plication algorithm based on the convolution theorem

    Pfeffer, P.: Comment on “Quantum multi- plication algorithm based on the convolution theorem”. Phys. Rev. A110, 056401 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2010)

    Nielsen, M.A., Chuang, I.L.: Quantum Com- putation and Quantum Information. Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2010)

    2010

  20. [20]

    Applied Physics Reviews6(2), 021318 (2019)

    Krantz, P., Kjaergaard, M., Yan, F., Orlando, T.P., Gustavsson, S., Oliver, W.D.: A quan- tum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits. Applied Physics Reviews6(2), 021318 (2019)

    2019

  21. [21]

    Zhang, X.-M., Yung, M.-H., Yuan, X.: Low- depth quantum state preparation. Phys. Rev. Res.3, 043200 (2021)

    2021

  22. [22]

    Nakaji, K., Uno, S., Suzuki, Y., Raymond, R., Onodera, T., Tanaka, T., Tezuka, H., Mitsuda, N., Yamamoto, N.: Approximate amplitude encoding in shallow parameterized quantum circuits and its application to finan- cial market indicators. Phys. Rev. Res.4, 023136 (2022)

    2022

  23. [23]

    Aaronson, S.: Read the fine print. Nat. Phys. 11, 291–293 (2015)

    2015

  24. [24]

    PRX Quantum6, 030202 (2025)

    Hashim, A., Nguyen, L.B., Goss, N., Marinelli, B., Naik, R.K., Chistolini, T., Hines, J., Marceaux, J.P., Kim, Y., Gokhale, P.,et al.: Practical introduction to bench- marking and characterization of quantum computers. PRX Quantum6, 030202 (2025)

    2025

  25. [25]

    Nobach, H., Honkanen, M.: Two-dimensional Gaussian regression for sub-pixel displace- ment estimation in particle image velocime- try or particle position estimation in particle tracking velocimetry. Exp. Fluids38, 511– 515 (2005)

    2005

  26. [26]

    Ramacciotti, D., Lefterovici, A.I., Rotundo, A.F.: Simple quantum algorithm to efficiently prepare sparse states. Phys. Rev. A110, 032609 (2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    Mao, R., Tian, G., Sun, X.: Toward optimal circuit size for sparse quantum state prepara- tion. Phys. Rev. A110, 032439 (2024)

    2024

  28. [28]

    Blum, M., Floyd, R.W., Pratt, V.R., Rivest, R.L., Tarjan, R.E.,et al.: Time bounds for selection. J. Comput. Syst. Sci.7, 448–461 (1973)

    1973

  29. [29]

    Holmes, Z., Coble, N.J., Sornborger, A.T., Suba¸ sı, Y.: Nonlinear transformations in quantum computation. Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013105 (2023)

    2023

  30. [30]

    In: Proceedings of the Fifth Israeli Symposium on Theory of Computing and Systems, pp

    Brassard, G., Hoyer, P.: An exact quan- tum polynomial-time algorithm for Simon’s problem. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Israeli Symposium on Theory of Computing and Systems, pp. 12–23 (1997)

    1997

  31. [31]

    In: Proceed- ings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing

    Grover, L.K.: A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In: Proceed- ings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. STOC ’96, pp. 212–219. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (1996)

    1996

  32. [32]

    Liberzon, A., Lasagna, D., Aubert, M., Bachant, P., Mahmoodtabar, E., K¨ aufer, T., Bauer, A., Vodenicharski, B., Dallas, C., Yang, E., et al.: Openpiv/openpiv-python: Openpiv-python v0. 22.3. Zenodo (2021)

    2021

  33. [33]

    In: Ruszczynski, A., Shapiro, A

    Shapiro, A.: Monte carlo sampling meth- ods. In: Ruszczynski, A., Shapiro, A. (eds.) Stochastic Programming vol. 10, pp. 353–425. Elsevier, ??? (2003)

    2003

  34. [34]

    Westerweel, J., Scarano, F.: Universal outlier detection for piv data. Exp. Fluids39, 1096– 1100 (2005)

    2005

  35. [35]

    Zecchi, A.A., Sanavio, C., Perotto, S., Succi, S.: Improved amplitude amplification strate- gies for the quantum simulation of classical transport problems. Quant. Sci. Technol.10, 035039 (2025) 15

    2025