Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Performance evaluation of variational quantum eigensolver and quantum dynamics algorithms on the advection-diffusion equation

A. Barış Özgüler*

  • *Contact author: baris_ozguler@berkeley.edu

Phys. Rev. E 114, 025306 – Published 31 August, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/mr76-1wtz

Abstract

Near-term quantum algorithms are a promising route to solving partial differential equations, but gauging their true potential requires separating algorithmic performance from sampling and hardware noise. We benchmark a ground-state variational quantum eigensolver (VQE), cast as a variational quantum linear solver, against the Trotterization, variational quantum imaginary time evolution, and adaptive variational quantum dynamics simulation methods applied to the one-dimensional advection-diffusion equation in the recent quantum-dynamics study by Alipanah et al. [Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 043318 (2025)] at matched grid and problem size. On a noiseless state-vector simulator the N=4 VQE drives the final-time infidelity to a numerical floor (1014) once the depth reaches L5, an algorithmic ceiling set by exact expectation values. Evaluating the same solver with a finite number S of measurement shots, still without hardware noise, makes the infidelity sampling limited, following 1fc/S (a best-case readout-sampling estimate, with the solution's signs assumed known), providing a regime-matched comparison with the shot-based emulator of Alipanah et al. and explaining the gap to their noisy hardware runs (>101). The benchmark thus decomposes the near-term error budget into algorithmic, sampling, and hardware contributions, with a matched-depth resource comparison. The formulation applies without modification across N=4,5,6 qubits and to a two-dimensional (eight-qubit, 16×16) problem evolved to t=1, where the state-vector VQE holds a 107 algorithmic-ceiling infidelity against the sampling-limited 105 of the corresponding shot-based simulation, a difference of measurement regime rather than algorithmic superiority.

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (95)

  1. Edited by E. Grumbling and M. Horowitz, Quantum Computing: Progress and Prospects (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Washington, DC, 2019).
  2. P. Givi, A. J. Daley, D. Mavriplis, and M. Malik, Quantum speedup for aeroscience and engineering, AIAA J. 58, 3715 (2020).
  3. Y. Alexeev, D. Bacon, K. R. Brown, R. Calderbank, L. D. Carr, F. T. Chong, B. DeMarco, D. Englund, E. Farhi, B. Fefferman, A. V. Gorshkov, A. Houck, J. Kim, S. Kimmel, M. Lange, S. Lloyd, M. D. Lukin, D. Maslov, P. Maunz, C. Monroe, et al., Quantum computer systems for scientific discovery, PRX Quantum 2, 017001 (2021).
  4. A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation, Nature (London) 607, 667 (2022).
  5. S. Succi, W. Itani, K. Sreenivasan, and R. Steijl, Quantum computing for fluids: Where do we stand? Europhys. Lett. 144, 10001 (2023).
  6. G. D. Metcalfe, B. Tabakov, T. Nguyen, J. Lu, and A. Sayir, Basic research perspective on quantum information science for the aerospace community, AIAA J. 61, 5191 (2023).
  7. F. Tennie and T. N. Palmer, Quantum computers for weather and climate prediction: The good, the bad, and the noisy, Bull. Am. Meteor. Soc. 104, E488 (2023).
  8. F. Tennie, S. Laizet, S. Lloyd, and L. Magri, Quantum computing for nonlinear differential equations and turbulence, Nat. Rev. Phys. 7, 220 (2025).
  9. C. A. Riofrío, J. Klepsch, J. R. Finžgar, F. Kiwit, L. Hölscher, M. Erdmann, L. Müller, C. Kumar, Y. A. Berrada, and A. Luckow, Quantum computing for automotive applications, arXiv:2409.14183.
  10. C. Sanavio and S. Succi, Quantum computing for simulation of fluid dynamics, in Quantum Information Science, edited by R. Steijl (IntechOpen, Rijeka, 2024), Chap. 1.
  11. C. Sanavio, E. Mauri, and S. Succi, Explicit quantum circuit for simulating the advection-diffusion-reaction dynamics, IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng. 6, 1 (2025).
  12. R. Au-Yeung, B. Camino, O. Rathore, and V. Kendon, Quantum algorithms for scientific computing, Rep. Prog. Phys. 87, 116001 (2024).
  13. C. Sanavio, W. A. Simon, A. Ralli, P. Love, and S. Succi, Carleman-lattice-Boltzmann quantum circuit with matrix access oracles, Phys. Fluids 37, 037123 (2025).
  14. A. A. Zecchi, C. Sanavio, S. Perotto, and S. Succi, Improved amplitude amplification strategies for the quantum simulation of classical transport problems, Quantum Sci. Technol. 10, 035039 (2025).
  15. L. Xu, M. Li, L. Zhang, H. Sun, and J. Yao, Improved quantum lattice Boltzmann method for advection-diffusion equations with a linear collision model, Phys. Rev. E 111, 045305 (2025).
  16. T. Proctor, K. Rudinger, K. Young, E. Nielsen, and R. Blume-Kohout, Measuring the capabilities of quantum computers, Nat. Phys. 18, 75 (2022).
  17. K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, W.-K. Mok, S. Sim, L.-C. Kwek, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 015004 (2022).
  18. T. Lubinski, S. Johri, P. Varosy, J. Coleman, L. Zhao, J. Necaise, C. H. Baldwin, K. Mayer, and T. Proctor, Application-oriented performance benchmarks for quantum computing, IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng. 4, 1 (2023).
  19. D. Lall, A. Agarwal, W. Zhang, L. Lindoy, T. Lindström, S. Webster, S. Hall, N. Chancellor, P. Wallden, R. Garcia-Patron, et al., A review and collection of metrics and benchmarks for quantum computers: Definitions, methodologies and software, arXiv:2502.06717.
  20. Edited by D. Livescu, A. G. Nouri, F. Battaglia, and P. Givi, Modeling and Simulation of Turbulent Mixing and Reaction: For Power, Energy and Flight (Springer, Germany, 2020).
  21. Q. Wang, Towards high-fidelity aerospace design in the age of extreme scale supercomputing, in Proceedings of the 22nd AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference (AIAA, Reston, VA, 2015).
  22. M. Reiher, N. Wiebe, K. M. Svore, D. Wecker, and M. Troyer, Elucidating reaction mechanisms on quantum computers, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, 7555 (2017).
  23. V. von Burg, G. H. Low, T. Häner, D. S. Steiger, M. Reiher, M. Roetteler, and M. Troyer, Quantum computing enhanced computational catalysis, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 033055 (2021).
  24. D. Jaksch, P. Givi, A. J. Daley, and T. Rung, Variational quantum algorithms for computational fluid dynamics, AIAA J. 61, 1885 (2023).
  25. R. Santagati, A. Aspuru-Guzik, R. Babbush, M. Degroote, L. Gonzalez, E. Kyoseva, N. Moll, M. Oppel, R. M. Parrish, N. C. Rubin, et al., Drug design on quantum computers, Nat. Phys. 20, 549 (2024).
  26. Z. Meng and Y. Yang, Quantum computing of fluid dynamics using the hydrodynamic Schrödinger equation, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033182 (2023).
  27. P. Brearley and S. Laizet, Quantum algorithm for solving the advection equation using Hamiltonian simulation, Phys. Rev. A 110, 012430 (2024).
  28. X. Huang, H. Nishi, T. Kosugi, Y. Kawada, and Y.-I. Matsushita, A probabilistic imaginary-time evolution quantum algorithm for advection-diffusion equation: Explicit gate-level implementation and comparisons to quantum linear system algorithms, arXiv:2409.18559.
  29. J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018).
  30. A. Callison and N. Chancellor, Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms in the noisy intermediate-scale quantum era and beyond, Phys. Rev. A 106, 010101 (2022).
  31. E. Osaba, E. Villar-Rodriguez, A. Gomez-Tejedor, and I. Oregi, Hybrid quantum solvers in production: How to succeed in the NISQ era? in Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated Learning – IDEAL 2024, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 15347 (Springer, Berlin, 2024), pp. 423–434.
  32. L. Wright, C. Mc Keever, J. T. First, R. Johnston, J. Tillay, S. Chaney, M. Rosenkranz, and M. Lubasch, Noisy intermediate-scale quantum simulation of the one-dimensional wave equation, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043169 (2024).
  33. M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum algorithms, Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 625 (2021).
  34. C. Bravo-Prieto, R. LaRose, M. Cerezo, Y. Subasi, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum linear solver, Quantum 7, 1188 (2023).
  35. K. Blekos, D. Brand, A. Ceschini, C.-H. Chou, R.-H. Li, K. Pandya, and A. Summer, A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants, Phys. Rep. 1068, 1 (2024).
  36. P. Rigas, Variational quantum algorithm for measurement extraction from the Navier-Stokes, Einstein, Maxwell, B-type, Lin-Tsien, Camassa-Holm, DSW, H-S, KdV-B, non-homogeneous KdV, generalized KdV, KdV, translational KdV, sKdV, B-L and Airy equations, arXiv:2209.07714.
  37. N. M. Guseynov, A. A. Zhukov, W. V. Pogosov, and A. V. Lebedev, Depth analysis of variational quantum algorithms for the heat equation, Phys. Rev. A 107, 052422 (2023).
  38. M. Ali and M. Kabel, Performance study of variational quantum algorithms for solving the Poisson equation on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 014054 (2023).
  39. F. Guzman-Cajica and F. S. Guzmán, Variational quantum Crank-Nicolson and method-of-lines schemes for the solution of initial value problems, Phys. Rev. A 110, 042415 (2024).
  40. A. Sarma, T. W. Watts, M. Moosa, Y. Liu, and P. L. McMahon, Quantum variational solving of nonlinear and multidimensional partial differential equations, Phys. Rev. A 109, 062616 (2024).
  41. H.-M. Li, Z.-X. Wang, and S.-M. Fei, Variational quantum algorithms for Poisson equations based on the decomposition of sparse Hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. A 108, 032418 (2023).
  42. A. J. Pool, A. D. Somoza, C. Mc Keever, M. Lubasch, and B. Horstmann, Nonlinear dynamics as a ground-state solution on quantum computers, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033257 (2024).
  43. Y. Liu, Z. Chen, C. Shu, P. Rebentrost, Y. Liu, S. Chew, B. Khoo, and Y. Cui, A variational quantum algorithm-based numerical method for solving potential and Stokes flows, Ocean Eng. 292, 116494 (2024).
  44. J. Hunout, S. Laizet, and L. Iannucci, Variational quantum algorithm based on Lagrange polynomial encoding to solve differential equations, Phys. Rev. A 111, 062404 (2025).
  45. Z. Song, R. Deaton, B. Gard, and S. H. Bryngelson, Incompressible Navier–Stokes solve on noisy quantum hardware via a hybrid quantum–classical scheme, Comput. Fluids 288, 106507 (2025).
  46. M. Choi and H. Ryu, A variational quantum algorithm for tackling multi-dimensional Poisson equations with inhomogeneous boundary conditions, New J. Phys. 27, 054510 (2025).
  47. H. Mărgărit, A. Bowman, K. Karuppasamy, A. Maldonado-Romo, V. Sahgal, and B. J. McDermott, Quantum mini-apps for engineering applications: A case study, arXiv:2411.12920.
  48. F. S. D. Bosco, D. S, R. Lineswala, and A. Chopra, Demonstration of scalability and accuracy of variational quantum linear solver for computational fluid dynamics, arXiv:2409.03241.
  49. M. Syamlal, C. Copen, M. Takahashi, and B. Hall, Computational fluid dynamics on quantum computers, in AIAA Aviation Forum 2024 (Paper AIAA 2024-3534) (AIAA, Reston, VA, 2024).
  50. G. Turati, A. Marruzzo, M. F. Dacrema, and P. Cremonesi, An empirical analysis on the effectiveness of the variational quantum linear solver, arXiv:2409.06339.
  51. A. Surana and A. Gnanasekaran, Variational quantum framework for partial differential equation constrained optimization, ACM Trans. Quantum Comput. 7, 1 (2026).
  52. A. Arora, B. M. Ward, and C. Oskay, An implementation of the finite element method in hybrid classical/quantum computers, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 248, 104354 (2025).
  53. J. Ingelmann, S. S. Bharadwaj, P. Pfeffer, K. R. Sreenivasan, and J. Schumacher, Two quantum algorithms for solving the one-dimensional advection–diffusion equation, Comput. Fluids 281, 106369 (2024).
  54. S. Bengoechea, P. Over, D. Jaksch, and T. Rung, Toward variational quantum algorithms for generalized linear and nonlinear transport phenomena, AIAA J. 64, 585 (2026).
  55. N. Köcher, H. Rose, J. Schumacher, and S. Schumacher, Numerical solution of nonlinear Schrödinger equation by a hybrid pseudospectral-variational quantum algorithm, Sci. Rep. 15, 23478 (2025).
  56. P. Over, S. Bengoechea, T. Rung, F. Clerici, L. Scandurra, E. de Villiers, and D. Jaksch, Boundary treatment for variational quantum simulations of partial differential equations on quantum computers, Comput. Fluids 288, 106508 (2025).
  57. A. Gnanasekaran, A. Surana, and H. Zhu, Variational quantum framework for nonlinear PDE constrained optimization using Carleman linearization, Quantum Inf. Comput. 25, 260 (2025).
  58. S. Fathi Hafshejani, D. Gaur, A. Dasgupta, R. Benkoczi, N. R. Gosala, and A. Iorio, A hybrid quantum solver for the Lorenz system, Entropy 26, 1009 (2024).
  59. Ó. Amaro, L. I. Iñigo Gamiz, and M. Vranic, Variational quantum simulation of the Fokker–Planck equation applied to quantum radiation reaction, J. Plasma Phys. 91, E122 (2025).
  60. A. C. Y. Li, M. S. Alam, T. Iadecola, A. Jahin, J. Job, D. M. Kurkcuoglu, R. Li, P. P. Orth, A. B. Özgüler, G. N. Perdue, et al., Benchmarking variational quantum eigensolvers for the square-octagon-lattice Kitaev model, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033071 (2023).
  61. A. B. Özgüler and D. Venturelli, Numerical gate synthesis for quantum heuristics on bosonic quantum processors, Front. Phys. 10, 900612 (2022).
  62. M. S. Alam, S. Belomestnykh, N. Bornman, G. Cancelo, Y.-C. Chao, M. Checchin, V. S. Dinh, A. Grassellino, E. J. Gustafson, R. Harnik, et al., Quantum computing hardware for HEP algorithms and sensing, in Proceedings of the US Community Study on the Future of Particle Physics (Snowmass) (2022), arXiv:2204.08605.
  63. D. Xu, A. B. Özgüler, G. Di Guglielmo, N. Tran, G. N. Perdue, L. Carloni, and F. Fahim, Neural network accelerator for quantum control, in Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM Third International Workshop on Quantum Computing Software (QCS) (IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 2022), pp. 43–49.
  64. F. Y. Leong, W.-B. Ewe, and D. E. Koh, Variational quantum evolution equation solver, Sci. Rep. 12, 10817 (2022).
  65. M. Motta, C. Sun, A. T. Tan, M. J. O'Rourke, E. Ye, A. J. Minnich, F. G. Brandao, and G. K.-L. Chan, Determining eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum computer using quantum imaginary time evolution, Nat. Phys. 16, 205 (2020).
  66. O. Ogunkoya, J. Kim, B. Peng, A. B. Özgüler, and Y. Alexeev, Qutrit circuits and algebraic relations: A pathway to efficient spin-1 Hamiltonian simulation, Phys. Rev. A 109, 012426 (2024).
  67. A. B. Özgüler and J. A. Job, Dynamics of qudit gates and effects of spectator modes on optimal control pulses, Phys. Rev. A 109, 052404 (2024).
  68. H. Kamakari, S.-N. Sun, M. Motta, and A. J. Minnich, Digital quantum simulation of open quantum systems using quantum imaginary–time evolution, PRX Quantum 3, 010320 (2022).
  69. S.-N. Sun, M. Motta, R. N. Tazhigulov, A. T. K. Tan, G. K.-L. Chan, and A. J. Minnich, Quantum computation of finite-temperature static and dynamical properties of spin systems using quantum imaginary time evolution, PRX Quantum 2, 010317 (2021).
  70. J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes, Nat. Commun. 9, 4812 (2018).
  71. S. Wang, E. Fontana, K. Sharma, A. Sone, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms, Nat. Commun. 12, 6961 (2021).
  72. M. Larocca, S. Thanasilp, S. Wang, K. Sharma, J. Biamonte, P. J. Coles, L. Cincio, J. R. McClean, Z. Holmes, and M. Cerezo, Barren plateaus in variational quantum computing, Nat. Rev. Phys. 7, 174 (2025).
  73. J. Cunningham and J. Zhuang, Investigating and mitigating barren plateaus in variational quantum circuits: A survey, Quantum Inf. Process. 24, 48 (2025).
  74. H. Alipanah, F. Zhang, Y. X. Yao, R. Thompson, N. Nguyen, J. Liu, P. Givi, B. J. McDermott, and J. J. Mendoza-Arenas, Quantum dynamics simulation of the advection-diffusion equation, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 043318 (2025).
  75. Z. Song and S. H. Bryngelson, Solving PDEs with quantum algorithms: A tutorial at IEEE Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), 2023, https://github.com/comp-physics/qce23-qpde-tutorial.
  76. S. Kumar and C. M. Wilmott, Generalising quantum imaginary time evolution to solve linear partial differential equations, Sci. Rep. 14, 20156 (2024).
  77. N. Guseynov, X. Huang, and N. Liu, Gate construction of block-encoding for Hamiltonians needed for simulating partial differential equations, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 033100 (2025).
  78. S. McArdle, T. Jones, S. Endo, Y. Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Variational ansatz-based quantum simulation of imaginary time evolution, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 75 (2019).
  79. X. Yuan, S. Endo, Q. Zhao, Y. Li, and S. C. Benjamin, Theory of variational quantum simulation, Quantum 3, 191 (2019).
  80. Y.-X. Yao, N. Gomes, F. Zhang, C.-Z. Wang, K.-M. Ho, T. Iadecola, and P. P. Orth, Adaptive variational quantum dynamics simulations, PRX Quantum 2, 030307 (2021).
  81. N. Gourianov, M. Lubasch, S. Dolgov, Q. Y. van den Berg, H. Babaee, P. Givi, M. Kiffner, and D. Jaksch, A quantum-inspired approach to exploit turbulence structures, Nat. Comput. Sci. 2, 30 (2022).
  82. N. Gourianov, Exploiting the structure of turbulence with tensor networks, Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford, 2022.
  83. N. Gourianov, P. Givi, D. Jaksch, and S. B. Pope, Tensor networks enable the calculation of turbulence probability distributions, Sci. Adv. 11, eads5990 (2025).
  84. C. A. Williams, S. Scali, A. A. Gentile, D. Berger, and O. Kyriienko, Addressing the readout problem in quantum differential equation algorithms with quantum scientific machine learning, arXiv:2411.14259.
  85. P. Siegl, G. S. Reese, T. Hashizume, N.-L. van Hülst, and D. Jaksch, Tensor-programmable quantum circuits for solving differential equations, Phys. Rev. Res. 8, 013052 (2026).
  86. A. Lipton, Mathematical Methods for Foreign Exchange: A Financial Engineer's Approach (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001).
  87. D. Herman, C. Googin, X. Liu, Y. Sun, A. Galda, I. Safro, M. Pistoia, and Y. Alexeev, Quantum computing for finance, Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 450 (2023).
  88. A. Lipton, Hydrodynamics of Markets: Hidden Links between Physics and Finance (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2024).
  89. B. Pokharel, N. Anand, B. Fortman, and D. A. Lidar, Demonstration of fidelity improvement using dynamical decoupling with superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 220502 (2018).
  90. J. J. Wallman and J. Emerson, Noise tailoring for scalable quantum computation via randomized compiling, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052325 (2016).
  91. L. Viola and S. Lloyd, Dynamical suppression of decoherence in two-state quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 58, 2733 (1998).
  92. P. Das, S. Tannu, S. Dangwal, and M. Qureshi, ADAPT: Mitigating idling errors in qubits via adaptive dynamical decoupling, in MICRO-54: 54th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (IEEE/ACM, Los Alamitos/New York, 2021), pp. 950–962.
  93. Y. Li and S. C. Benjamin, Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimization, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021050 (2017).
  94. H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer, Nat. Commun. 10, 3007 (2019).
  95. A. B. Özgüler, PUNQ: reproduction package for “Performance evaluation of variational quantum eigensolver and quantum dynamics algorithms on the advection-diffusion equation”, Zenodo (2026), doi:10.5281/zenodo.21933057.

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation