A Quantum Linear Systems Pathway for Solving Differential Equations
Extracted source text · arXiv 2510.06837
\documentclass[3p, twocolumn]{elsarticle}
\biboptions{sort&compress}
\usepackage[breaklinks=true]{hyperref}
\usepackage[anythingbreaks]{breakurl}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{tikz}
\usetikzlibrary{shapes.geometric, arrows.meta}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\usepackage{blkarray}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage[capitalize]{cleveref}
\usepackage[super]{nth}
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{dblfloatfix}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{graphicx, import, color}
\graphicspath{{./Images/5/}}
\usetikzlibrary{arrows.meta,
bending,
calc, chains,
decorations.pathmorphing,
positioning
}
\usepackage{pgfplots}
\usepgfplotslibrary{fillbetween}
\usetikzlibrary{intersections}
\renewcommand{\sectionautorefname}{Section} % PS
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num}
\begin{document}
\begin{frontmatter}
\title{A Quantum Linear Systems Pathway for Solving Differential Equations}
% Author affiliations
\author[a,b]{Abhishek Setty\corref{mycorrespondingauthor}}
\cortext[mycorrespondingauthor]{Corresponding author}
\ead{a.setty@fz-juelich.de} % Email of the corresponding author
% Address affiliations
\address[a]{Forschungszentrum Jülich, Institute of Quantum Control (PGI-8), D-52425 Jülich, Germany}
\address[b]{Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Cologne, D-50937 Cologne, Germany}
\begin{abstract}
We present a systematic pathway for solving differential equations within the quantum linear systems framework by combining block encoding with Quantum Singular Value Transformation (QSVT). The approach is demonstrated on a complex tridiagonal linear system and extended to problems in computational fluid dynamics: the heat equation with mixed boundary conditions and the nonlinear Burgers’ equation. Our scaling analysis of the heat equation shows how discretization influences the minimum singular value and the polynomial degree required for QSVT, identifying circuit-depth overhead as a key bottleneck. For Burgers’ equation, we illustrate how Carleman-linearized nonlinear dynamics can be efficiently block encoded and solved within the QSVT framework. These results highlight both the potential and limitations of current methods, underscoring the need for efficient estimation of minimum singular value, depth-reduction techniques, and benchmarks against classical reachability. This pathway lays a foundation for advancing quantum linear system methods toward large-scale applications.
\end{abstract}
\begin{keyword}
Differential equations \sep Quantum singular value transformation \sep Block encoding \sep Quantum linear algebra
\end{keyword}
\end{frontmatter}
\thispagestyle{empty}
\tableofcontents
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:Intro}
The quest to harness quantum algorithms for solving differential equations has been underway for over a decade. Between linear algebra \cite{harrow2009quantum,childs2017quantum} and variational \cite{setty2025self,lubasch2020variational} approaches,\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=1.5cm]
\tikzstyle{rounded-block} = [rectangle, rounded corners, minimum width=3.5cm,
minimum height=1cm,text centered, draw=black]
\tikzstyle{sharp-block} = [rectangle, minimum width=3.5cm, minimum height=1cm,
text centered, draw=black]
\tikzstyle{decision} = [diamond, aspect=2, text centered, draw=black]
\tikzstyle{arrow} = [very thick,->,>=stealth]
% Nodes
\node (p1) [rounded-block] {Differential equations};
\node (p2) [sharp-block, below of=p1] {Discretization (FDM, FEM, FVM) \cite{leveque1992numerical,leveque2007finite,strikwerda2004finite,zienkiewicz2005finite,brenner2008mathematical,leveque2002finite,morton2005numerical,patankar2018numerical}};
\node (p3) [decision, below of=p2] {Linear?};
\node (p4) [sharp-block, right of=p3, xshift=4cm] {Carleman linearization \cite{carleman1932application,kowalski1991nonlinear,liu2021efficient,bakker2023quantum,akiba2023carleman,lewis2024limitations,wu2025quantum}};
\node (p5) [sharp-block, below of=p4] {Determine truncation order \cite{forets2017explicit,amini2022carleman,gonzalez2025quantum}};
\node (p6) [sharp-block, below of=p3] {Formulate $Ax = b$};
\node (p7) [sharp-block, below of=p6, xshift=7cm] {Estimate $\sigma_{\text{min}}$ \cite{golub1965calculating,spielman2001smoothed,kannan2009spectral,rudelson2009smallest,litvak2011smallest,cohen2015uniform,musco2015randomized,gotze2023largest}};
\node (p8) [sharp-block, below of=p7, xshift=0cm] {Generate $\phi$ for matrix inversion \cite{chao2020finding,dong2021efficient,martyn2021grand}};
\node (p9) [sharp-block, below of=p6, yshift=-1cm] {Block encoding of sparse matrices \cite{setty2025block}};
\node (p10) [sharp-block, below of=p9] {QSVT \cite{gilyen2019quantum}};
\node (p11) [sharp-block, below of=p10, xshift=-3cm, yshift=-0.5cm] {State tomography \cite{cramer2010efficient}};
\node (p12) [sharp-block, below of=p10, xshift=1.2cm, yshift=-0.5cm] {Sampling $|x\rangle$ \cite{gilyen2019quantum,aaronson2014quantum}};
\node (p13) [sharp-block, below of=p10, xshift=6.5cm, yshift=-0.5cm] {Observable estimation $\langle x| M | x \rangle$ \cite{harrow2009quantum,childs2017quantum}};
% Arrows
\draw [arrow] (p1) -- (p2);
\draw [arrow] (p2) -- (p3);
\draw [arrow] (p3) -- (p4) node[midway, above]{No};
\draw [arrow] (p3) -- (p6) node[midway, left]{Yes};
\draw [arrow] (p4) -- (p5);
\draw [arrow] (p5) -- (p6);
\draw [arrow] (p6.south) -- ++ (0, -1) -- (p7);
\draw [arrow] (p6) -- (p9);
\draw [arrow] (p7) -- (p8);
\draw [arrow] (p8.south) -- ++ (0, -0.5) -- (p10);
\draw [arrow] (p9) -- (p10);
\draw [arrow] (p10.south) -- ++ (0, -0.5) -- ++ (-3, 0) -- (p11.north);
\draw [arrow] (p10.south) -- ++ (0, -0.5) -- ++ (1.2, 0) -- (p12.north);
\draw [arrow] (p10.south) -- ++ (0, -0.5) -- ++ (6.5, 0) -- (p13.north);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Quantum linear systems pathway for solving differential equations using QSVT. Here $\sigma_{\text{min}}$ denotes the smallest singular value of the matrix, and $\phi$ denotes the phases used for approximating the inverse function (see \cref{sec:qsp,sec:inverse_function}).}
\label{fig:1_Pathway}
\end{figure*} the demand for provably accurate and deterministic solutions has led to growing interest in linear algebra methods, which circumvent the major challenges of barren plateaus and optimization difficulties inherent in variational schemes \cite{cerezo2021cost,larocca2025barren}.
A pioneering linear algebra based approach is the Harrow-Hassidim-Lloyd (HHL) algorithm \cite{harrow2009quantum}, which reduces linear differential equations to linear systems and solves them via quantum phase estimation. More recently, Quantum Singular Value Transformation (QSVT) has emerged as a unifying framework encompassing matrix inversion, phase estimation, Hamiltonian simulation, and amplitude amplification \cite{gilyen2019quantum, martyn2021grand}. In this framework, solving linear systems amounts to approximating $f(x) = 1/x$ through polynomial transformations of the singular values. For a matrix $A \in \mathcal{C}^{N \times N}$ with condition number $\kappa$, QSVT achieves complexity $\mathcal{O}[\kappa \log{(\kappa/\epsilon)}]$, improving on the HHL bound of $\mathcal{O}[\kappa^2 \log{(N)/\epsilon}]$, where $\epsilon$ denotes the error tolerance \cite{martyn2021grand}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Images/2/2_QSVT.pdf}
\caption{Quantum circuit for solving the linear system $|x\rangle = \text{QSVT}(\bar{A}^{\dag})|b\rangle$ using QSVT, with the rescaled solution given by \cref{eq:LSE}. For demonstration, a square matrix $\bar{A}$ is used, with phases $\{\phi_i\}_{i=0}^d$ in the reflection convention \cref{sec:reflection_convention} for an odd-degree $d$ inverse polynomial (see \cref{sec:inverse_function,eq:U_phi_QSVT}). The $|\text{QSP}\rangle$ qubit applies the phase sequence $\vec{\phi}$. The $|\text{Flag}\rangle$ register contains $m$ data qubits plus one delete qubit as in \cref{fig:A3_Block_Encode}. The $|\text{Matrix}\rangle$ register consists of $n$ qubits for preparing $|b\rangle$ and encoding $\bar{A}^{\dag}$. All qubits start in $|0\rangle$ state. Projector-controlled phase shift gates $\raisebox{0.3ex}{\scalebox{0.7}{$\prod$}}_{\phi_i}$ and $\raisebox{0.3ex}{\scalebox{0.7}{$\widetilde{\prod}$}}_{\phi_i}$ (identical for a square matrix) are implemented using MCX gates with controls on all $|\text{Flag}\rangle = 0$. The vertical dotted line indicates a barrier separating $|b\rangle$ from the rest of the circuit; the dots indicate a repeated pattern. Post-selection on the $|\text{QSP}\rangle$ and $|\text{Flag}\rangle$ is denoted by $\langle 0|$, and the final solution state is $|x\rangle$.}
\label{fig:2_QSVT}
\end{figure*}
While these advances are well understood at the theoretical level, detailed circuit-level implementations for solving differential equations—and the associated bottlenecks—remain underexplored. In this work, we consolidate key developments in the literature and present a systematic pathway for applying QSVT-based linear solvers to differential equations. We first provide a brief overview of matrix inversion via QSVT with gate-level block encoding as a subroutine, followed by its application to complex linear systems. We then investigate differential equations from computational fluid dynamics (CFD), specifically the linear heat equation and the Carleman-linearized nonlinear Burgers’ equation. Our scaling analysis highlights critical challenges, including circuit-depth overhead, reliable estimation of small singular values, and the design of post-processing techniques that preserve potential quantum speedups.
\section{A Linear Systems Pathway}\label{sec:pathway}
In this section, we outline a pathway for solving differential equations through their reduction to linear systems of equations \cref{fig:1_Pathway}. Differential equations that admit discretization via finite difference (FDM), finite element (FEM), or finite volume (FVM) methods yield systems of the form $Ax = b$ when linear. For nonlinear cases, Carleman linearization is applied, with the truncation order chosen based on the degree of nonlinearity and desired error tolerance, again resulting in a system $Ax=b$.
We then estimate the smallest singular value $\sigma_{\text{min}}$ of $A$, from which the factor $\kappa$ is determined. This value informs the construction of phase factors $\phi$ that approximate the inverse function polynomial using quantum signal processing \cref{sec:qsp,sec:inverse_function}. The matrix is subsequently block-encoded, and the inversion phases $\phi$ are applied within the QSVT framework to solve the linear system.
The procedure outputs a quantum state $|x\rangle$, from which information can be extracted in several ways: (i) full tomography, which sacrifices exponential speedup, (ii) sampling to probe the probability distribution and identify dominant components, or (iii) computing observable expectation values $\langle x|M|x \rangle$ for overlaps or other quantities of interest.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.485\textwidth}
%\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Images/3/3a_Complex.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig:3a_Complex}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.25\textwidth}
%\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Images/3/3b_Complex.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig:3b_Complex}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.25\textwidth}
%\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Images/3/3c_Complex.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig:3c_Complex}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Solution of the complex tridiagonal linear system \cref{sec:tridiagonal_complex}.
\subref{fig:3a_Complex} Circuit for block encoding $A^{\dagger}$ of \cref{eq:complex_matrix}, where control values of the data item $-b\textrm{i}$ are denoted as $-\vec{b}\textrm{i}$.
\subref{fig:3b_Complex} Inverse function approximation using Quantum Signal Processing (QSP) \cref{sec:qsp,sec:inverse_function}. Subnormalized $\sigma$ denote singular values of $A^{\dagger}/\alpha$, while optimal $\sigma$ denote singular values of $A^{\dagger}/||A^{\dagger}||_2$, with $||\cdot||_2$ the spectral norm.
\subref{fig:3c_Complex} Parity plot comparing the true $(A^{+}\vec{y})$ with the QSVT solution $(A^{+}\vec{y})_{\text{QSVT}}$, showing real and imaginary parts separately.}
\label{fig:3_Tridiagonal_complex}
\end{figure*}
\section{Matrix Inversion by QSVT}\label{sec:matrix_inversion_by_qsvt}
In this section, we elaborate on the procedure for matrix inversion using QSVT, building on the concepts described in \cref{sec:qsp,sec:inverse_function,sec:block_encoding,sec:qsvt}. Starting from a linear system $A\vec{x} = \vec{b}$, the goal is to solve for $\vec{x}$ as $\vec{x} = A^{+}\vec{b}$, where $A^{+}$ denotes the pseudoinverse of $A$.
QSVT relies on block encoding, which embeds a (possibly non-unitary) matrix $A$ into a unitary $U_A$ as,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:U_A_Block_Encode}
U_A =
\begin{pmatrix}
A/\alpha & *\\
* & *
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
where $\alpha \geq ||A||_2$ is a subnormalization factor and $||\cdot||_2$ is the spectral norm.
Let the singular value decomposition (SVD) of $A$ \cref{eq:A_svd} be
\begin{equation}
\bar{A} = A/\alpha = \sum_k \sigma_k |w_k\rangle \langle v_k |.
\end{equation}
The pseudoinverse is then given by
\begin{equation}
\bar{A}^{+} = \alpha A^{+} = \sum_k \frac{1}{\sigma_k} |v_k\rangle \langle w_k |.
\end{equation}
By block encoding the conjugate transpose $\bar{A}$ as $\bar{A}^{\dag} = A^{\dag}/\alpha = \sum_k \sigma_k |v_k\rangle \langle w_k |$, the pseudoinverse can be approximated using QSVT:
\begin{equation}
\bar{A}^{+} \approx \text{QSVT}(\bar{A}^{\dag}) = \sum_k \text{Poly}(\sigma_k) |v_k\rangle \langle w_k |,
\end{equation}
where the QSVT construction is described in \cref{sec:qsvt}.
Representing $\vec{b} \in \mathbb{C}^N$ as a quantum state $|b\rangle = \vec{b}/||\vec{b}||$, the solution to the linear system is
\begin{equation} \label{eq:LSE}
\vec{x} = A^{+}\vec{b} \approx \text{QSVT}(\bar{A}^{\dag}) |b\rangle \left( \frac{||\vec{b}||}{\alpha \beta} \right),
\end{equation}
where $\beta$ is a scaling factor (see \cref{eq:beta}).
The corresponding quantum circuit for $\text{QSVT}(\bar{A}^{\dag})|b\rangle$ is shown in \cref{fig:2_QSVT} for square matrices. For non-square matrices, the projectors $\raisebox{0.3ex}{\scalebox{0.7}{$\prod$}}$ and $\raisebox{0.3ex}{\scalebox{0.7}{$\widetilde{\prod}$}}$ can be adjusted to select the appropriate left and right singular vectors.
Block-encoded matrices $U_A$ are of size $2^n \times 2^n$, where $n$ is the number of qubits. If the matrix to be inverted does not occupy the full space, the desired submatrix $B_1$ can be isolated from $\begin{bmatrix}
B_1 & B_2 \\
B_3 & B_4
\end{bmatrix}$ either by choosing suitable projectors within QSVT or by setting $B_2=0$ and $B_3=0$.
\section{Circuit Level Simulations}\label{sec:Circuit_level_simulations}
We perform circuit-level simulations to evaluate QSVT-based matrix inversion for linear systems, starting with a complex tridiagonal linear system. Applications include differential equations from CFD, such as the heat equation with Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions and the nonlinear Burgers’ equation via Carleman linearization. These simulations demonstrate the method’s applicability and allow analysis of circuit depth and scaling. All simulations are performed using the Pennylane software \cite{bergholm2018pennylane}.
\subsection{Complex Tridiagonal Linear System}\label{sec:tridiagonal_complex}
Consider the linear system $A\vec{x} =\vec{y}$, where $A \in \mathbb{C}^{8 \times 8}$ is a complex tridiagonal coefficient matrix and $\vec{y} \in \mathbb{C}^8$ is a complex vector:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:complex_matrix}
A =
\begin{bmatrix}
z_2 & z_3\\
z_1 & z_2 & z_3\\
& \ddots & \ddots & \ddots\\
& & z_1 &z_2 & z_3\\
& & &z_1 & z_2
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}
where $z_1 = a + b\textrm{i}, z_2 = c + d\textrm{i}, z_3 = e+f\textrm{i}$ and $a, b, c, d, e, f \in (-1, 1)$ are sampled independently from a uniform distribution. Similarly, each component of $\vec{y}$ is generated as $y_k = g_k + h_k\textrm{i}$ with $g_k, h_k, \sim \mathcal{U}(-1, 1)$.
The solution procedure via QSVT follows \cref{sec:matrix_inversion_by_qsvt}, with the block encoding applied to $A^{\dag}$. Using the block encoding protocol \cite{setty2025block}, the state preparation \cite{mottonen2004transformation,mottonen2004quantum} embeds the vector $A_{\text{data}}^{\dag} = [a, -b\textrm{i}, c, -d\textrm{i}, e, -f\textrm{i}]^T$ into three data qubits, padded as $[a, -b\textrm{i}, c, -d\textrm{i}, e, -f\textrm{i}, 0, 0]^T$. Data items ${\{a, -b\textrm{i}\}}$ and ${\{e, -f\textrm{i}\}}$ are shifted and deleted appropriately from rows $\vec{r}_7$ and $\vec{r}_0$ to match the block encoding structure. The circuit for this matrix is shown in \cref{fig:3a_Complex}.
%should be shifted towards right by one column and deleted in row $\vec{r}_7$. Similarly, data items ${\{e, -f\textrm{i}\}}$ should be shifted towards left by one column and deleted in row $\vec{r}_0$. The circuit representation for this matrix is given in \cref{fig:5a_Complex}.
QSVT applies a polynomial function to the singular values of the block encoded matrix $A^{\dag}/\alpha$ without explicitly extracting them. To demonstrate inversion, we implemented quantum signal processing for the inverse function \cref{fig:3b_Complex}, following the pathway in \cref{sec:pathway}. The minimum singular value $\sigma_{\text{min}}$ is estimated, determining the factor $\kappa = 4$ resulting in polynomial degree $d=117$ for the inverse approximation. Subnormalization of $A^{\dag}$ reduces singular values, which increases the required polynomial degree; note that $\sigma_{\text{min}} > 1/\kappa$ is required for accurate inversion.
State-vector simulations were performed to replicate the effect of full state tomography. The solution $\vec{x} =A^{+} \vec{y}$ is shown in \cref{fig:3c_Complex}, with real and imaginary parts plotted separately in a parity plot. These results demonstrate that sparse complex linear systems can be solved effectively using block encoding \cite{setty2025block} and QSVT \cite{gilyen2019quantum}, as proposed in this work.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Images/4/4a_Heat.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig:4a_Heat}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.2935\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Images/4/4b_Heat.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig:4b_Heat}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.2935\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Images/4/4c_Heat.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig:4c_Heat}
\end{subfigure}
\\
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Images/4/4d_Heat.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig:4d_Heat}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{0.5cm}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Images/4/4e_Heat.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig:4e_Heat}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Solution of the heat equation \cref{sec:heat_equation}. \subref{fig:4a_Heat} Circuit for block encoding $A^{\dag}$ of matrix \cref{eq:heat_A_numerical}. \subref{fig:4b_Heat} Implicit solution with left Dirichlet and right Neumann boundary conditions via QSVT, compared with the true solution, for $t=[0, 100]$. \subref{fig:4c_Heat} Scaling of the minimum subnormalized singular value $(\sigma_{\text{min}})$ and inverse polynomial degree $d$ versus time step $\Delta t (\Delta x = 0.125)$; $\Delta t_{\text{exp}}^{\text{max}}$ indicates the threshold separating explicit and implicit schemes. \subref{fig:4d_Heat} Scaling with the number of matrix qubits $n=\{3, 4, 5, 6\}$ for $\Delta t = \{1, 2, 3\}$. A double exponential fit is shown and tested for $n = 7$. \subref{fig:4e_Heat} Estimated $\sigma_{\text{min}}$ and polynomial degree as $n$ scales, with the same legend as \subref{fig:4d_Heat}. Extrapolation can estimate circuit depth required for quantum advantage over a 50-qubit classical simulator.}
\label{fig:4_Heat}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Heat Equation With Dirichlet and Neumann Boundary Conditions}\label{sec:heat_equation}
We consider the 1D heat equation $\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} = \nu \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2}, x \in [0, 1], t > 0$, with initial condition $u(x, 0)=0, x \in (0, 1]$, left Dirichlet boundary $u(0, t) = 1$, and right Neumann boundary $\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}|_{x=1} = 0$. Discretization via finite differences allows explicit (\cref{eq:heat_explicit}) and implicit (\cref{eq:heat_implicit}) methods. While the explicit scheme is conditionally stable with $\Delta t_{\text{exp}}^{\text{max}} \leq \Delta x^2/2\nu$, the implicit scheme is unconditionally stable and requires matrix inversion (\cref{eq:heat_LSE}).
For three matrix qubits $(n=3)$ and $N=9$ grid points, with $\nu=0.01, \Delta x = 0.125,$ and $\Delta t = 1$, the explicit method fails $(\Delta t > \Delta t_{\text{exp}}^{\text{max}})$. the implicit method is formulated as a linear system $A \vec{u} = \vec{b}$ with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:heat_A_numerical}
A = \begingroup
\setlength{\arraycolsep}{2.3pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{bmatrix}
2.28 &-0.64\\
-0.64&2.28&-0.64\\
&\ddots&\ddots&\ddots \\
&&-0.64&2.28&-0.64\\
&&&-1.28&2.28
\end{bmatrix},
\endgroup
\end{equation}
here the factor $\lambda = \frac{\nu \Delta t}{\Delta x^2} = 0.64$. Following the block encode protocol \cite{setty2025block}, the matrix $A^{\dag}$ is embedded, with appropriate shifting and deletion of data items $A_{\text{data}}^{\dag} = [-0.64, 2.28, -0.64, -1.28]^T=[a, b, c, d]^T$ as shown in \cref{fig:4a_Heat}. Using the pathway in \cref{sec:pathway}, we estimate $\sigma_{\text{min}}$, set $\kappa = 8$, and calculate phases $\phi$ for an inverse polynomial of degree $d=559$. Matrix inversion via QSVT (\cref{sec:matrix_inversion_by_qsvt}) yields the solution compared with the true result in \cref{fig:4b_Heat} over $t \in [0, 100]$.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.33\textwidth}
\centering
\scalebox{0.7}{
\def\svgwidth{\textwidth}
\input{./Images/5/5a_Burgers.pdf_tex}
}
\caption{}
\label{fig:5a_Burgers}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Images/5/5b_Burgers.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig:5b_Burgers}
\end{subfigure}
\label{fig:5_Burgers}
\caption{\subref{fig:5a_Burgers} Matrix representation of $L^{\dagger}$ for solving Burgers’ equation. Colored sub-blocks highlight distinct matrix components, while the uncolored block corresponds to $A_1^2 = 0$ in \cref{eq:A_truncation}. Data items are labeled $[a_i]_{i=0}^{13}$. Continuous colored lines indicate repeating $a_i$ values along diagonals with fixed offsets, and black square dots mark single, non-repeating entries. \subref{fig:5b_Burgers} Initial condition at $t=0$, and comparison of the QSVT implicit solution with the classical explicit solution at $t=0.3$.}
\end{figure*}
Since CFD requires fine discretization in space and time, it is crucial to analyze how quantum resource demands scale as discretization grows exponentially with the number of qubits. We study scaling with $\Delta t \in [0.01, 4]$ at fixed $\Delta x = 0.125$ (\cref{fig:4c_Heat}), showing that decreasing $\sigma_{\text{min}}$ of the subnormalized matrix and increasing $d$ flatten at larger $\Delta t$. The threshold time step $\Delta t_{\text{exp}}^{\text{max}}$ illustrates the instability of explicit schemes and the need for implicit formulations. Scaling with matrix qubits $n=\{3, 4, 5, 6\}$ and $\Delta t = \{1, 2, 3\}$ is shown in \cref{fig:4d_Heat}, where a double-exponential fit $y(x) = A e^{-Bx} + C e^{-Dx}$ \cite{virtanen2020scipy} is validated for $n=7$. Extrapolation to larger $n$ predicts the QSVT circuit depth required for quantum advantage. Since excessive circuit depth can erase speedups, even if gates are operated near the quantum speed limit \cite{margolus1998maximum,levitin2009fundamental,deffner2017quantum}, resource reduction remains essential. Moreover, this extrapolation framework provides a benchmark to compare resource scaling of various quantum algorithms against classical reachability.
\subsection{Burgers' Equation}\label{sec:Burgers_equation}
We now consider the nonlinear Burgers' equation, $\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} + u \frac{\partial u}{\partial x} = \nu \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2}$ defined on $x \in [0, 1]$, with initial condition $u(x, 0) = \sin{(2 \pi x)}$ and Dirichlet boundary conditions $u(0, t) = u(1, t) = 0$ for $t>0$. Following the pathway in \cref{sec:pathway}, the partial differential equation (PDE) is first discretized in space via finite differences, yielding a system of nonlinear ordinary differential equations (ODEs). Carleman linearization \cite{liu2021efficient} is then applied to embed the nonlinear dynamics into a high-dimensional linear system. Time discretization using the implicit scheme produces a linear system solvable via QSVT-based matrix inversion, as detailed in \cref{sec:Carleman_Linearization,sec:Linearization_Burgers,sec:matrix_inversion_by_qsvt}.
Using the notation in \cref{sec:Carleman_Linearization,sec:Linearization_Burgers}, we consider $S=7$ grid points, $\Delta x = 1/(S-1), \nu =0.01, \Delta t = 0.1,$ total time $T = 0.3$, and truncation order $N=2$. The resulting linear system $L \vec{y}^{k+1} = B$ (\cref{eq:Carleman_linear_system}) produces a block encoded matrix $L^{\dag}$ of size $30 \times 30$ (\cref{eq:A_truncation}). This requires $5$ matrix qubits ($32 \times 32$ embedding), with the target submatrix chosen as $\begin{bmatrix}
L^{\dag} & 0\\
0 & *
\end{bmatrix}$, where $*$ is an arbitrary (see \cref{sec:matrix_inversion_by_qsvt}). The sparse structure of $L^{\dag}$ is shown in \cref{fig:5a_Burgers}. Block encoding of $L^{\dag}$ consists of data vector $L^{\dag}_{\text{data}} = [a_0, a_1, \cdots, a_{13}]$, requiring $\left\lceil \text{Dim}(L^{\dag}_{\text{data}}) \right\rceil = 4$ data qubits after zero-padding. The associated block encoding operations such shift, deletion, and insertion are listed in \cref{table1:Burgers_operations} (see \cite{setty2025block}).
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{Block encoding operations}\\
\hline
$a_0=-0.036, L_5=L_1L_4, D_{a_0}^{\{0-9,30,31\}}$\\
$a_1=-0.036, L_1, D_{a_1}^{\{0,5,10,15,20,25,30,31\}}$\\
$\tilde{a}_2=a_3-a_2=0.072, D_{\widetilde{a}_2}^{\{0-4\}}$\\
$\tilde{a}_3=a_2=1.072$\\
$a_4=-0.036, R_1, D_{a_4}^{\{4,9,14,19,24,29,30,31\}}$\\
$a_5=-0.036,R_5=R_1R_4, D_{a_5}^{\{0-4,25-31\}}$\\
$a_6=0.3,L_6=L_2L_4,I_{a_6}^{6}$\\
$a_7=-0.3,L_9=L_1L_8,I_{a_7}^{10}$\\
$a_8=0.3,L_{11}=L_1L_2L_8,I_{a_8}^{12}$\\
$a_9=-0.3,L_{14}=L_2L_4L_8,I_{a_9}^{16}$\\
$a_{10}=0.3,L_{16},I_{a_{10}}^{18}$\\
$a_{11}=-0.3,L_{19}=L_1L_2L_{16},I_{a_{11}}^{22}$\\
$a_{12}=0.3,L_{21}=L_1L_4L_{16},I_{a_{12}}^{24}$\\
$a_{13}=-0.3,L_{24}=L_8L_{16},I_{a_{13}}^{28}$\\
$a_{14}=0$\\
$a_{15}=0$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Block encoding operations (\cref{sec:block_encoding}) for $L^{\dagger}$ of Burgers' equation (\cref{fig:5a_Burgers}), with data vector $[a_i]_{i=0}^{15}$. Modified entries $\tilde{a}_2, \tilde{a}_3$ correspond to $a_2=1.072$ and $a_3=1.144$. Shift operations are denoted as left $L_{\text{shift}}$ and right $R_{\text{shift}}$, deletion operations as $D_{a_i}^{r_{a_i}}$ (removing $a_i$ from row $r_{a_i}$), and insertion operations as $I_{a_i}^{r_{a_i}}$.}
\label{table1:Burgers_operations}
\end{table}
The block encoding circuit for operations in \cref{table1:Burgers_operations} is shown in \cref{fig:A3_Block_Encode} which consists of state preparation (PREP, UNPREP), index-mapping oracles (shift, delete, insert), and the coherent permutation $P$ (\cref{sec:block_encoding}). We then estimate $\sigma_{\text{min}}$, set $\kappa =8$, and calculate $\phi$ for inverse polynomial of degree 559 for QSVT-based matrix inversion. The solution of Burgers' equation is shown in \cref{fig:5b_Burgers}, where the QSVT implicit scheme is compared with the classical explicit solution of \cref{eq:Burgers_quadratic_ODE} (analogous to the heat equation explicit scheme \cref{eq:heat_explicit}). Results confirm that the proposed pathway (\cref{sec:pathway}) enables quantum linear system methods to solve nonlinear PDEs through Carleman linearization.
\section{Discussion}
In this work, we have consolidated major advances in the literature and outlined a systematic pathway for solving differential equations within the quantum linear systems framework. By bridging algorithmic concepts with circuit-level implementation, we identify key bottlenecks that must be addressed for practical deployment.
A key component of our approach is the use of QSVT in combination with block encoding of sparse matrices for matrix inversion. A notable advantage of this method is its reusability: once a phase sequence is optimized for a chosen $\kappa_2$, it remains valid for any matrix $A$ with $\kappa_1 = 1/\sigma_{\text{min}}$, provided $\kappa_2 > \kappa_1$. This property can significantly reduce preprocessing overhead in practical implementations.
We demonstrate the utility of this framework by implementing matrix inversion on a complex linear system and extending it to differential equations relevant to CFD. In particular, we consider the linear heat equation and the Carleman-linearized Burgers’ equation. The latter illustrates how nonlinear dynamics can be embedded into a linear framework, with Carleman linearization itself representing an active area of research.
Our scaling analysis of the heat equation underscores a critical challenge: the circuit depth overhead caused by polynomial approximations of the inverse function. This motivates further work on depth-reduction strategies, such as singular value amplification \cite{low2017hamiltonian,gilyen2019quantum}, or alternative approximation methods.
Another important open problem is the efficient estimation of $\sigma_{\text{min}}$ for sparse matrices at scale, which is essential for computing the QSVT phase factors $\phi$. Likewise, progress in quantum state sampling and observable estimation will be required to ensure that post-processing costs do not erode the theoretical speedups. By addressing these challenges, future research can help close the gap between theory and practice, ultimately advancing quantum linear solvers toward large-scale applications.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This research was funded through the European Union’s Horizon Programme (HORIZONCL4-2021-DIGITALEMERGING-02-10), Grant Agreement 101080085 (QCFD).
%\section*{Author Contributions}
%A.S. conceived the study, conducted the research, and wrote the manuscript.
%\section*{Competing Interests}
%Author A.S. declare no competing interests.
\bibliography{bibliography.bib}
\newpage
\clearpage
%\onecolumn
\appendix
\begin{center}
\section*{Appendix}\label{sec:Appendix}
\end{center}
To make the paper self-contained, we include here essential background material. Each section introduces a specific topic with its own notations and conventions.
\section{Quantum Signal Processing}\label{sec:qsp}
Quantum Signal Processing (QSP) is a framework for implementing polynomial transformations on quantum computers. Conceptually, QSP combines two single-qubit rotations: a fixed \emph{signal rotation} $W$ and a variable \emph{signal processing rotation} $S$, tuned to realize the desired polynomial. In this section, we summarize the conventions from \cite{martyn2021grand} used in this work.
\subsection{$W_X$ Convention for QSP}\label{sec:W_x_convention}
In the $W_X$ convention, the signal operator is,
\begin{equation}
W_X(a) = \begin{bmatrix}
a & i\sqrt{1-a^2}\\
i\sqrt{1-a^2} & a
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}
which corresponds to an $R_X(\theta)$ rotation with angle $\theta = -2\cos^{-1}{a}$. The signal processing operator is $S(\phi^{'}) = e^{i \phi^{'}Z},$, with the phase sequence $\vec{\phi^{'}} = (\phi^{'}_0, \phi^{'}_0, \phi^{'}_1, \cdots, \phi^{'}_d) \in \mathbb{R}^{d+1}$. The resulting QSP operator is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:W_x_convention}
U_{W_X}(\vec{\phi^{'}}) = e^{i\phi^{'}_0Z} \prod_{k=1}^d W_X(a) e^{i\phi^{'}_kZ}.
\end{equation}
A real polynomial can be obtained in the basis $M = \{|+\rangle, |-\rangle\}$, leading to the following theorem:
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem_qsp}
[$(W_X, S_Z, \langle+| \cdot |+\rangle)$-QSP].
For $a \in [-1,1]$, a phase sequence $\vec{\phi^{\prime}} \in \mathbb{R}^{d+1}$ exists such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Poly_a}
\textnormal{Poly}(a) = \langle+| U_{W_X}(\vec{\phi^{\prime}}) |+\rangle,
\end{equation}
for any real polynomial $\textnormal{Poly} \in \mathbb{R}[a]$, if and only if:
\begin{enumerate}[label=\roman*., itemsep=0pt]
\item $\deg(\textnormal{Poly}) \leq d$
\item $\textnormal{Poly}$ has parity $d \bmod 2$
\item $|\textnormal{Poly}(a)| \leq 1$ for all $a \in [-1,1]$
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
The proof is provided in \cite{gilyen2019quantum}. The corresponding circuit is shown in \cref{fig:A1_QSP}. The key task is to compute the phase sequence $\vec{\phi^{\prime}}$ that approximates a target polynomial.
\subsection{Reflection Convention for QSP}\label{sec:reflection_convention}
In the reflection convention, the signal operator is chosen as a reflection:
\begin{equation}
R(a) = \begin{bmatrix}
a & \sqrt{1-a^2}\\
\sqrt{1-a^2} & -a
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}
where $R(a) = XR_Y(\theta)$ with $\theta = 2 \sin^{-1}a$. For a phase sequence $\vec{\phi}$, the QSP operator is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:reflection_convention}
U_{\text{Reflection}}(\vec{\phi}) = e^{i \phi_0 Z} \prod_{k=1}^{d} R(a) e^{i \phi_k Z}
\end{equation}
The transformation between phase sequences of $W_X$ convention \cref{eq:W_x_convention} $\vec{\phi^{'}}$ and reflection convention \cref{eq:reflection_convention} $\vec{\phi}$ is given by \cite{dong2021efficient, martyn2021grand}, such that,
\begin{equation}
e^{i \phi_0 Z} \prod_{k=1}^{d} R(a) e^{i \phi_k Z} = e^{i \phi^{'}_0 Z} \prod_{k=1}^{d} W_X(a) e^{i \phi^{'}_k Z}.
\end{equation}
Note that QSVT requires phase sequences from reflection convention.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{\columnwidth}
%\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{./Images/Appendix/A1_QSP.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig:A1_QSP}
\end{subfigure}
\\
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.7\columnwidth}
%\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{./Images/Appendix/A2_Inverse.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig:A2_Inverse}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\subref{fig:A1_QSP} Circuit for QSP in the $W_X$ convention \cref{eq:Poly_a}, with $\theta = -2 \cos^{-1}x$. The central dots indicate continuation of the pattern. \subref{fig:A2_Inverse} Approximation of the inverse function using QSP over $x \in [0,1]$. For demonstration, desired inverse values are truncated. The best approximation occurs in the range $x \in [1/\kappa, 1]$.}
\label{fig:A1_A2}
\end{figure}
\section{Inverse Function}\label{sec:inverse_function}
In this section, we describe the inverse function approximation using QSP. Specifically, it provides an $\epsilon/2\kappa$ approximation to $(1/2\kappa)(1/x)$ \cite{martyn2021grand}, where $\kappa$ is the condition number of the matrix. The target inversion function is \cite{childs2017quantum, gilyen2019quantum}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:inverse_function}
f(x) = \frac{1-(1-x^2)^b}{x},
\end{equation}
which is an $\epsilon$-approximation to $1/x$ over $x \in [-1, 1]\setminus[-1/\kappa, 1/\kappa]$.
Since $f(x)$ is not a polynomial, it is expanded as a linear combination of Chebyshev polynomials over $x\in[-1, 1]$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:1/x_function}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{$
P^{1/x}_{2\epsilon, \kappa}(x) \!= \!4 \sum\limits_{j=0}^{d}(-1)^j \! \left[ 2^{-2b}\! \sum\limits_{i=j+1}^{b} \!
\begin{pmatrix}
2b \\
b+i
\end{pmatrix} \! \right] \! T_{2j+1}(x)$},
\end{equation}
where $b=\kappa^2 \log{\kappa/\epsilon}$, $T_i(x)$ is the Chebyshev polynomial of first kind and order $i$, and
\[
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{$
d(\epsilon, \kappa) = \left\lceil \sqrt{b(\epsilon, \kappa) \log{[4b(\epsilon, \kappa)/\epsilon]}}\right\rceil = \mathcal{O}[\kappa \log{(\kappa/\epsilon)}]
$}
\]
is the degree of this polynomial. This yields a $2\epsilon$-approximation to $1/x$ over $x\in[-1, 1]\backslash [-1/\kappa, 1/\kappa]$.
The polynomial $P^{1/x}_{2\epsilon, \kappa}(x)$ is then expressed using Laurent polynomials, from which the phase sequence $\vec{\phi^{\prime}}$ in the $W_X$ convention \cref{sec:W_x_convention} is obtained via the \texttt{PyQSP} package \cite{martyn2021grand, chao2020finding, dong2021efficient}. Using these phases, the QSP operator \cref{eq:Poly_a} approximates
\begin{equation}\label{eq:beta}
\text{Poly}(x) \approx \beta \frac{1}{x},
\end{equation}
where $\beta$ is a normalization factor, since QSP polynomials are bounded by $1$ on $x \in [-1,1]$ (see \cref{theorem_qsp}). Thus, the approximation to $1/x$ requires dividing by $\beta$.
As an example, for $\kappa=4$ and $\epsilon=0.1$, the resulting inverse function in the $W_X$ convention is shown in \cref{fig:A2_Inverse}. For use in QSVT, the phase sequence $\vec{\phi^{\prime}}$ is finally converted to the reflection convention $\vec{\phi}$ \cref{sec:reflection_convention}.
\section{Quantum Singular Value Transformation}\label{sec:qsvt}
We have seen that QSP enables polynomial transformations of an input signal $a$ \cref{theorem_qsp}. QSVT extends this idea by allowing polynomial transformations to be applied directly to the singular values of a block-encoded matrix \cref{eq:U_A_Block_Encode}. Following the conventions in \cite{gilyen2019quantum, martyn2021grand}, we outline QSVT below.
Consider a matrix $A$ scaled by a subnormalization factor $\alpha$, with singular value decomposition (SVD),
\begin{equation}
A/\alpha = W\Sigma V^{\dag},
\end{equation}
where $W$ and $V$ are unitary matrices and $\Sigma$ is diagonal with singular values $\Sigma = \{\sigma_k \mid \sigma_k \in [0,1] \, \forall k \}$. There are $r = \text{rank}(A/\alpha)$ nonzero singular values.
The columns of $W$ and $V$ form orthonormal bases, denoted $\{|w_k\rangle\}$ and $\{|v_k\rangle\}$, corresponding to the left and right singular vectors, respectively. Thus the SVD can be written as,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:A_svd}
A/\alpha = \sum\limits_{k=1}^{r} \sigma_k |w_k \rangle \langle v_k |.
\end{equation}
From the block-encoding unitary $U_A$ (see \cref{eq:U_A_Block_Encode}), the embedded matrix $A/\alpha$ is obtained as,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:U_A_Projectors}
U_A = \begin{blockarray}{c@{\hskip 1.5ex}cc}
& \scalebox{0.7}{$\prod$} & & & \\[0.05cm]
\begin{block}{c@{\hskip 1.5ex}[cc]}
\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.7}{$\widetilde{\prod}$}} & A/\alpha & *\\
& * & * \\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray},
\end{equation}
where $\raisebox{0.3ex}{\scalebox{0.7}{$\widetilde{\prod}$}} = \sum_k |w_k\rangle \langle w_k|$ and $\raisebox{0.3ex}{\scalebox{0.7}{$\prod$}} = \sum_k |v_k\rangle \langle v_k|$ are projectors. In this notation, $A/\alpha = \raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.7}{$\widetilde{\prod}$}} \, U_A \, \raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.7}{$\prod$}}$. The projector $\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.7}{$\prod$}}$ selects the right singular vectors (columns), while $\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.7}{$\widetilde{\prod}$}}$ selects the left singular vectors (rows). Using these notations, the QSVT can be formulated in theorem as follows,
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem_qsvt}
For an arbitrary matrix, $A$ block encoded into unitary $U_A$ with subnormalization factor $\alpha$ as, $A/\alpha = \sum_k \sigma_k |w_k \rangle \langle v_k |$, which can be located within $U_A$ using projector-controlled NOT gates $\raisebox{0.3ex}{\scalebox{0.7}{$\prod$}}$ and $\raisebox{0.3ex}{\scalebox{0.7}{$\widetilde{\prod}$}}$ as in \cref{eq:U_A_Projectors}. Then using the projector-controlled phase shift operations $\raisebox{0.3ex}{\scalebox{0.7}{$\prod$}}_\phi$ and $\raisebox{0.3ex}{\scalebox{0.7}{$\widetilde{\prod}$}}_\phi$ (defined as in \cite{martyn2021grand}) for phases $\vec{\phi}$ as in \cref{eq:reflection_convention}, the QSVT operation for odd $d$ is given by,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:U_phi_QSVT}
\begin{split}
%\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{$
\hspace{-0.125cm}
U_{\vec{\phi}} &= \raisebox{0.3ex}{\scalebox{0.7}{$\widetilde{\prod}$}}_{\phi_0} U_A \left[ \prod\limits_{k=1}^{(d-1)/2} \raisebox{0.3ex}{\scalebox{0.7}{$\prod$}}_{\phi_{2k-1}} U^{\dag}_A \raisebox{0.3ex}{\scalebox{0.7}{$\widetilde{\prod}$}}_{\phi_{2k}} U_A \right] \raisebox{0.3ex}{\scalebox{0.7}{$\prod$}}_{\phi_{d}} \\
&= \begin{blockarray}{c@{\hskip 1.5ex}cc}
& \scalebox{0.7}{$\prod$} & & & \\[0.05cm]
\begin{block}{c@{\hskip 1.5ex}[cc]}
\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.7}{$\widetilde{\prod}$}} & \textnormal{Poly}_{(\textnormal{SV})}(A/\alpha) & *\\
& * & * \\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\textnormal{Poly}_{(\textnormal{SV})}(A/\alpha)$ is an odd polynomial of degree $d$ defined as,
\begin{equation}
\textnormal{Poly}_{(\textnormal{SV})}(A/\alpha) = \sum_k \textnormal{Poly}(\sigma_k) |w_k \rangle \langle v_k|,
\end{equation}
which applies a polynomial transform to the singular values of $A/\alpha$.
Similarly, for even $d$,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
U_{\vec{\phi}} &= \left[ \prod\limits_{k=0}^{d/2} \raisebox{0.3ex}{\scalebox{0.7}{$\prod$}}_{\phi_{2k}} U^{\dag}_A \raisebox{0.3ex}{\scalebox{0.7}{$\widetilde{\prod}$}}_{\phi_{2k+1}} U_A \right] \raisebox{0.3ex}{\scalebox{0.7}{$\prod$}}_{\phi_{d}} \\
&= \begin{blockarray}{c@{\hskip 1.5ex}cc}
& \scalebox{0.7}{$\prod$} & & & \\[0.05cm]
\begin{block}{c@{\hskip 1.5ex}[cc]}
\raisebox{0.4ex}{\scalebox{0.7}{$\widetilde{\prod}$}} & \textnormal{Poly}_{(\textnormal{SV})}(A/\alpha) & *\\
& * & * \\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\textnormal{Poly}_{(\textnormal{SV})}(A/\alpha)$ is an even polynomial of degree $d$ defined as,
\begin{equation}
\textnormal{Poly}_{(\textnormal{SV})}(A/\alpha) = \sum_k \textnormal{Poly}(\sigma_k) |v_k \rangle \langle v_k|,
\end{equation}
which is also a polynomial transform to the singular values of $A/\alpha$ but here the input and output vector spaces are both right singular vectors.
\end{theorem}
The proof of this theorem, along with the general block-encoding framework, is given in \cite{gilyen2019quantum}. A key advantage of QSVT is that it applies polynomial transformations directly to the singular values of a matrix, without requiring their explicit computation or an SVD.
\section{Finite Difference Methods for Heat Equation}\label{sec:FDE_heat}
Consider the heat equation $\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} = \nu \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2}$, where $\nu > 0$ is the thermal diffusivity. The discrete variables are $t_n = n \Delta t, \, x_i = i \Delta x, \, u_i^n = u(x_i, t_n)$. Using a forward difference in time and central difference in space, the explicit scheme is
\begin{equation}
\frac{u_i^{n+1} - u_i^{n}}{\Delta t} = \nu \frac{u_{i+1}^n - 2u_i^n + u_{i-1}^n}{\Delta x^2} + O(\Delta t, \Delta x^2),
\end{equation}
where $O(\Delta t, \Delta x^2)$ denotes the truncation error. Rearranging gives
\begin{equation}\label{eq:heat_explicit}
u^{n+1}_i = \lambda u_{i+1}^n + (1 - 2 \lambda) u_i^n + \lambda u_{i-1}^n,
\end{equation}
with $\lambda = \nu \frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x^2}$. In vector form, this is $\vec{u}^{n+1} = A \vec{u}^n + \vec{f}^{\text{BC}}$, where $\vec{f}^{\text{BC}}$ accounts for boundary conditions. This scheme avoids matrix inversion but is conditionally stable, with stability governed by von Neumann analysis \cite{leveque2007finite, ames2014numerical}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:heat_von_Neumann}
\Delta t_{\text{exp}}^{\text{max}} \leq \frac{\Delta x^2}{2\nu}.
\end{equation}
For $\Delta t > \Delta t_{\text{exp}}^{\text{max}}$, the explicit scheme diverges, while the implicit method remains stable for any $\Delta t$, making it preferable for larger time steps.
The implicit discretization is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:heat_implicit_discretize}
\frac{u_i^{n+1} - u_i^{n}}{\Delta t} = \nu \frac{u_{i+1}^{n+1} - 2u_i^{n+1} + u_{i-1}^{n+1}}{\Delta x^2} + O(\Delta t, \Delta x^2),
\end{equation}
which rearranges to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:heat_implicit}
- \lambda u_{i-1}^{n+1} + (1 + 2\lambda) u_i^{n+1} - \lambda u_{i+1}^{n+1} = u_i^n.
\end{equation}
This leads to the linear system
\begin{equation}\label{eq:heat_LSE}
A \vec{u}^{n+1} = \vec{b}^n,
\end{equation}
where $\vec{b}^n = \vec{u}^n + \vec{f}^{\text{BC}}$. Such systems can be efficiently solved using QSVT \cref{sec:matrix_inversion_by_qsvt}.
For boundary conditions, let the solution domain be $x \in [0, L]$ with grid points $\{u_i\}_{i=0}^N$. We impose a Dirichlet condition on the left boundary, $u_0 = D_B^l$, and a Neumann condition on the right, $\partial u/\partial x|_{x=L} = N_B^r$, approximated using central difference as
\begin{equation}
\frac{u_{N+1} - u_{N-1}}{2\Delta x} = N_B^r,
\end{equation}
where the ghost point method gives $u_{N+1} = u_{N-1} + 2N_B^r \Delta x$. Substituting these boundary conditions into \cref{eq:heat_implicit} yields the linear system \cref{eq:heat_LSE}, where $\vec{u}^{n+1} = [u_1^{n+1}, u_2^{n+1}, \ldots, u_N^{n+1}]^T, \quad
\vec{b}^n = [u_1^n + \lambda D_B^l, u_2^n, \ldots, u_N^n + 2\lambda N_B^r \Delta x]^T,$
and the coefficient matrix is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:heat_A}
A = \begingroup
\setlength{\arraycolsep}{2.3pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{bmatrix}
1 + 2\lambda & -\lambda \\
-\lambda & 1 + 2\lambda & -\lambda \\
& \ddots & \ddots & \ddots \\
&& -\lambda & 1 + 2\lambda & -\lambda \\
&&& -2\lambda & 1 + 2\lambda
\end{bmatrix}.
\endgroup
\end{equation}
\section{Carleman Linearization}\label{sec:Carleman_Linearization}
Consider the initial value problem defined by an $n$-dimensional quadratic ordinary differential equation (ODE) \cite{liu2021efficient}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:quadratic_ode}
\frac{\text{d}u}{\text{d}t} = F_2 u^{\otimes2} + F_1 u + F_0(t), \quad u(0) = u_{\text{in}},
\end{equation}
where $u = [u_1, \ldots, u_n]^T \in \mathbb{R}^n$, and
$u^{\otimes2} = [u_1^2, \, u_1u_2, \ldots, u_1u_n, \, u_2u_1, \ldots, u_n u_{n-1}, \, u_n^2]^T \in \mathbb{R}^{n^2}$.
Each component $u_j = u_j(t)$ is defined on the interval $[0, T]$ for $j \in [n] = \{1, \ldots, n\}$. The coefficient matrices are $F_2 \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n^2}$ and $F_1 \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$, both time-independent, while the inhomogeneity $F_0(t) \in \mathbb{R}^n$ is a $C^1$ continuous function of $t$.
Carleman linearization is a technique for transforming a finite-dimensional nonlinear system into an infinite hierarchy of coupled linear differential equations \cite{carleman1932application,kowalski1991nonlinear,forets2017explicit}. Truncating this hierarchy at order $N$ yields a finite linear system. For the quadratic ODE system \cref{eq:quadratic_ode}, the Carleman procedure (see \cite{liu2021efficient}) produces the corresponding system of linear ODEs as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Carleman_equation}
\frac{\text{d}\vec{y}}{\text{d}t} = A(t)\vec{y} + b(t), \hspace{0.4cm} \vec{y}(0) = \vec{y}_{\text{in}},
\end{equation}
where $\vec{y} = [\hat{y}_1, \hat{y}_2, \cdots, \hat{y}_{N-1}, \hat{y}_N]^T, b(t)=[F_0(t), 0, \cdots, 0]^T$ and matrix $A$ is given as,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Carleman_A}
A = \begingroup
\setlength{\arraycolsep}{2.3pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\begin{bmatrix}
A_1^1 & A_2^1\\
A_1^2 & A_2^2 & A_3^2\\
& \ddots & \ddots & \ddots\\
&& A_{N-2}^{N-1} & A_{N-1}^{N-1} & A_{N}^{N-1}\\
&&& A_N^{N-1} & A_N^N
\end{bmatrix}.
\endgroup
\end{equation}
Here $\hat{y}_j=u^{\otimes j} \in \mathbb{R}^{n^j}, \vec{y}_{\text{in}} = [u_{\text{in}}; u_{\text{in}}^{\otimes 2}; \cdots ; u_{\text{in}}^{\otimes N}],$ and $A^j_{j+1} \in \mathbb{R}^{n^j \times n^{j+1}}, A_j^j \in \mathbb{R}^{n^j \times n^j}, A_{j-1}^j \in \mathbb{R}^{n^j \times n^{j-1}}$ for $j \in [N]$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{$
A_{j+1}^j = F_2 \otimes I^{\otimes j-1} + I \otimes F_2 \otimes I^{\otimes j-2} + \cdots + I^{\otimes j-1} \otimes F_2,$}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{$
A_{j}^j = F_1 \otimes I^{\otimes j-1} + I \otimes F_1 \otimes I^{\otimes j-2} + \cdots + I^{\otimes j-1} \otimes F_1,$}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{$
A_{j-1}^{j} \!= \! F_0(t) \! \otimes \! I^{\otimes j-1}\! +\! I \! \otimes \! F_0(t) \! \otimes \! I^{\otimes j-2} \! + \! \cdots \! + \! I^{\otimes j-1} \! \otimes \! F_0(t).$}
\end{equation}
The dimension of \cref{eq:Carleman_A} is,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Dim_A}
\text{Dim}(A) = n + n^2 + \cdots + n^N = \frac{n^{N+1}-n}{n-1} = O(n^N).
\end{equation}
The Carleman-linearized system \cref{eq:Carleman_equation} can be expressed as a linear system of equations using the implicit finite difference method from \cref{sec:FDE_heat}. For discrete time steps $t_k = k \Delta t$, the scheme takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Carleman_linear_system}
\begin{split}
\frac{\vec{y}^{\,k+1} - \vec{y}^{\,k}}{\Delta t} &= A(t)\,\vec{y}^{\,k+1} + b(t),\\
(I - A(t)\Delta t)\,\vec{y}^{\,k+1} &= \vec{y}^{\,k} + b(t)\Delta t,\\
L\,\vec{y}^{\,k+1} &= B.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{./Images/Appendix/A3_Block_Encode.pdf}
\caption{Circuit for block encoding via coherent permutation \cite{setty2025block}.
The circuit is initialized with $m$ data qubits ($|\text{data}\rangle$), one delete qubit ($|\text{del}\rangle$), and $n$ matrix index qubits ($|j\rangle$).
It employs PREP and UNPREP operators for state preparation, along with combined shift, delete, and insert operations.
Coherent permutation is handled by $\text{P}_{\text{R}}/\text{P}_{\text{L}}$ operators. Dots indicate repeating structures.}
\label{fig:A3_Block_Encode}
\end{figure*}
\section{Linearization of Burgers' Equation}\label{sec:Linearization_Burgers}
Consider the one-dimensional Burgers' equation,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} + u \frac{\partial u}{\partial x} = \nu \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2},
\end{equation}
where $\nu \,(\text{const.} \geq 0)$ is the diffusion coefficient, $x \in [0, 1]$, and $t \in [0, T]$. The discrete variables are defined as $t_k = k \Delta t, x_i = i \Delta x, u_i^k = u(x_i, t_k)$ with $\{u_i\}_{i=0}^{S}$. Applying a central difference discretization in space gives
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Burgers_quadratic_ODE}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{$
\frac{\text{d} u}{\text{d} t}
= \frac{\nu}{\Delta x^2}(u_{i+1} - 2u_i + u_{i-1})
- \frac{1}{2\Delta x}\, u_i (u_{i+1} - u_{i-1}).$}
\end{equation}
This form directly matches the quadratic ODE representation in \cref{eq:quadratic_ode}. For the test problem in \cref{sec:Burgers_equation}, we impose Dirichlet boundary conditions $u(0, t) = u_0 = u(1, t) = u_{S-1} = 0$. Defining $\lambda_1 = \tfrac{\nu}{\Delta x^2}$ and $\lambda_2 = -\tfrac{1}{2\Delta x}$, the system matrices in \cref{eq:quadratic_ode} are
\begin{equation}
F_1 = \lambda_1
\begingroup
\setlength{\arraycolsep}{2.3pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\begin{bmatrix}
-2 & 1\\
1 & -2 & 1\\
& \ddots & \ddots & \ddots\\
&&1 & -2 & 1\\
&&& 1 &-2
\end{bmatrix}_{(S-2, S-2)},
\endgroup
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
F_2 \!= \! \lambda_2\! \\
\begingroup
\setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\begin{bmatrix}
0&-1\\
&&\cdots&1&0&-1\\
&&&&&\vdots\\
&&&&&&1&0
\end{bmatrix}_{(S-2, (S-2)^2)},
\endgroup
\end{equation}
with $F_0(t)=0$. For a truncation order $N=2$, the Carleman matrix \cref{eq:Carleman_A} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{eq:A_truncation}
A = \begin{bmatrix}
A_1^1 & A_2^1\\
A_1^2 & A_2^2
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}
of size $(S - 2 + (S - 2)^2, S - 2 + (S - 2)^2)$. Since $F_0(t)=0$, we have $A_1^2=0$. This can be formulated further as linear system using implicit scheme \cref{eq:Carleman_linear_system} that can be solved using QSVT \cref{sec:matrix_inversion_by_qsvt}.
\section{Block Encoding of Sparse Matrices}\label{sec:block_encoding}
In this section, we present the final circuit for block encoding of sparse matrices using coherent permutation \cite{setty2025block}. The approach employs PREP/UNPREP operators in conjunction with shift (left $L$, right $R$), delete, and insert operators. The coherent permutation mechanism plays a central role in reducing the complexity of multi-controlled X (MCX) gates and achieving nearest-neighbor connectivity, resulting in hardware-efficient circuit designs. The overall construction is depicted in \cref{fig:A3_Block_Encode}, where $\text{P}_{\text{L}}$ and $\text{P}_{\text{R}}$ represent left- and right-ended permutations, respectively. Further implementation details are provided in \cite{setty2025block}.
For the block encoding of the Carleman-linearized matrix of the Burgers’ equation discussed in \cref{sec:Burgers_equation}, the corresponding operations are listed in \cref{table1:Burgers_operations}. Note that two distinct diagonal entries, $(a_2, a_3)$, occur along the main diagonal. Within the block-encoding framework, these appear as a combined term $a_2 + a_3$ (see \cite{setty2025block}). To address this, we introduce modified block-encoding operations as follows: (i) data vector: $\tilde{a}_2 = a_3 - a_2, \tilde{a}_3 = a_2$; (ii) delete operations: $\tilde{a}_2: D_{\tilde{a}_2}^{\{0-4\}}, \tilde{a}_3: \text{None}$. The resulting subnormalization factor within $\alpha$ becomes $|\tilde{a}_2| + |\tilde{a}_3|$, which is advantageous when $|a_3 - a_2| < |a_3|$.
Next, we identify the common shift operators, summarized in \cref{table:Common_shift}, while the delete and insert operations remain as defined in \cref{table1:Burgers_operations}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.37\textwidth}
%\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Images/Appendix/A4_Permutation.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig:A4_Permutation}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{1cm}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.33\textwidth}
%\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Images/Appendix/A5_Permutation.pdf}
\caption{}
\label{fig:A5_Permutation}
\end{subfigure}
\label{fig:A4_A5_Permutation}
\caption{\subref{fig:A4_Permutation} Coherent permutation on data qubits (\cref{eq:right_permute_mapping}). \subref{fig:A5_Permutation} Coherent permutation on matrix qubits (\cref{eq:left_permute_mapping}).}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{| l | l |}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Common shift operators}\\
\hline
$L_1$ &$a_0, a_1, a_7, a_8, a_{11}, a_{12}, a_{14}, a_{15}$\\
$L_2$ &$a_6, a_8, a_9, a_{11}$\\
$L_4$ & $a_0, a_6, a_9, a_{12}$\\
$L_8$ & $a_7, a_8, a_9, a_{13}$\\
$L_{16}$ & $a_{10}, a_{11}, a_{12}, a_{13}$\\
$R_1$ & $a_4, a_5$\\
$R_4$ & $a_5$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Common shift operations for the data items from \cref{table1:Burgers_operations}. Note that the $L_1$ shift involves six data items; however, zeros in $a_{14}$ and $a_{15}$ allow extending it to eight shifts.}
\label{table:Common_shift}
\end{table}
We now determine the amplitude permutation required for combined operations. For demonstration, we consider the shift $L_1$ from \cref{table:Common_shift} and the deletion $D_{a_1}$ from \cref{table1:Burgers_operations}.
For $L_1$, the control states $S_2$ correspond to the data items $[a_0, a_1, a_7, a_8, a_{11}, a_{12}, a_{14}, a_{15}]$. Implementing a single, combined shift operator requires coherent permutation of these data items. A permutation that ensures nearest-neighbor connectivity of MCX gates with the matrix qubits is the right-ended permutation $\text{P}_{\text{R}}$, defined as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:right_permute_mapping}
\begin{aligned}
a_0\hspace{0.2cm}&0000\\
a_1\hspace{0.2cm}&0001&\rightarrow0011&\rightarrow0010\\
a_7\hspace{0.2cm}&0111&\rightarrow0110\\
a_8\hspace{0.2cm}&1000\\
a_{11}\hspace{0.2cm}&1011&\rightarrow1010\\
a_{12}\hspace{0.2cm}&1100\\
a_{14}\hspace{0.2cm}&1110\\
a_{15}\hspace{0.2cm}&1111&\rightarrow0111&\rightarrow0101&\rightarrow0100
\end{aligned}.
\end{equation}
The MCX gates implementing the mapping in \cref{eq:right_permute_mapping} constitute the operator $\text{P}_{\text{R}}$, as illustrated in \cref{fig:A4_Permutation}.
For the combined delete operation $D_{a_1}$, the control states $S_2$ correspond to rows [0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 31].
Implementing a unified delete operator similarly requires coherent permutation of these rows. A permutation achieving nearest-neighbor connectivity of MCX gates with the data qubits is the left-ended permutation $\text{P}_{\text{L}}$, defined as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:left_permute_mapping}
\begin{aligned}
0\hspace{0.2cm}&00000&\rightarrow01000&\rightarrow11000\\
5\hspace{0.2cm}&00101&\rightarrow01101&\rightarrow11101\\
10\hspace{0.2cm}&01010&\rightarrow11010\\
15\hspace{0.2cm}&01111&\rightarrow01011&\rightarrow11011\\
20\hspace{0.2cm}&10100&\rightarrow11100\\
25\hspace{0.2cm}&11001\\
30\hspace{0.2cm}&11110\\
31\hspace{0.2cm}&11111
\end{aligned}.
\end{equation}
The MCX gates realizing this mapping correspond to the operator $\text{P}_{\text{L}}$, illustrated in \cref{fig:A5_Permutation}.
The complete block-encoding circuit for the Carleman-linearized matrix is shown in \cref{fig:5a_Burgers}, and this circuit is embedded within the QSVT framework (\cref{fig:2_QSVT}) to solve the Burgers’ equation described in \cref{sec:Burgers_equation}.
\end{document}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax
\def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi
\expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi
\expandafter\ifx\csname href\endcsname\relax
\def\href#1#2{#2} \def\path#1{#1}\fi
\bibitem{harrow2009quantum}
A.~W. Harrow, A.~Hassidim, S.~Lloyd, Quantum algorithm for linear systems of
equations, Physical review letters 103~(15) (2009) 150502.
\bibitem{childs2017quantum}
A.~M. Childs, R.~Kothari, R.~D. Somma, Quantum algorithm for systems of linear
equations with exponentially improved dependence on precision, SIAM Journal
on Computing 46~(6) (2017) 1920--1950.
\bibitem{setty2025self}
A.~Setty, R.~Abdusalamov, F.~Motzoi, Self-adaptive physics-informed quantum
machine learning for solving differential equations, Machine Learning:
Science and Technology 6~(1) (2025) 015002.
\bibitem{lubasch2020variational}
M.~Lubasch, J.~Joo, P.~Moinier, M.~Kiffner, D.~Jaksch, Variational quantum
algorithms for nonlinear problems, Physical Review A 101~(1) (2020) 010301.
\bibitem{leveque1992numerical}
R.~J. LeVeque, R.~J. Leveque, Numerical methods for conservation laws, Vol.
132, Springer, 1992.
\bibitem{leveque2007finite}
R.~J. LeVeque, Finite difference methods for ordinary and partial differential
equations: steady-state and time-dependent problems, SIAM, 2007.
\bibitem{strikwerda2004finite}
J.~C. Strikwerda, Finite difference schemes and partial differential equations,
SIAM, 2004.
\bibitem{zienkiewicz2005finite}
O.~C. Zienkiewicz, R.~L. Taylor, The finite element method for solid and
structural mechanics, Elsevier, 2005.
\bibitem{brenner2008mathematical}
S.~C. Brenner, L.~R. Scott, The mathematical theory of finite element methods,
Springer, 2008.
\bibitem{leveque2002finite}
R.~J. LeVeque, Finite volume methods for hyperbolic problems, Vol.~31,
Cambridge university press, 2002.
\bibitem{morton2005numerical}
K.~W. Morton, D.~F. Mayers, Numerical solution of partial differential
equations: an introduction, Cambridge university press, 2005.
\bibitem{patankar2018numerical}
S.~Patankar, Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow, CRC press, 2018.
\bibitem{carleman1932application}
T.~Carleman, Application of the theory of linear integral equations to systems
of nonlinear differential equations (1932).
\bibitem{kowalski1991nonlinear}
K.~Kowalski, W.-h. Steeb, Nonlinear dynamical systems and Carleman
linearization, World Scientific, 1991.
\bibitem{liu2021efficient}
J.-P. Liu, H.~{\O}. Kolden, H.~K. Krovi, N.~F. Loureiro, K.~Trivisa, A.~M.
Childs, Efficient quantum algorithm for dissipative nonlinear differential
equations, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118~(35) (2021)
e2026805118.
\bibitem{bakker2023quantum}
B.~Bakker, T.~W. Watts, Quantum carleman linearization of the lattice boltzmann
equation with boundary conditions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.04781 (2023).
\bibitem{akiba2023carleman}
T.~Akiba, Y.~Morii, K.~Maruta, Carleman linearization approach for chemical
kinetics integration toward quantum computation, Scientific Reports 13~(1)
(2023) 3935.
\bibitem{lewis2024limitations}
D.~Lewis, S.~Eidenbenz, B.~Nadiga, Y.~Suba{\c{s}}{\i}, Limitations for quantum
algorithms to solve turbulent and chaotic systems, Quantum 8 (2024) 1509.
\bibitem{wu2025quantum}
H.-C. Wu, J.~Wang, X.~Li, Quantum algorithms for nonlinear dynamics: Revisiting
carleman linearization with no dissipative conditions, SIAM Journal on
Scientific Computing 47~(2) (2025) A943--A970.
\bibitem{forets2017explicit}
M.~Forets, A.~Pouly, Explicit error bounds for carleman linearization, arXiv
preprint arXiv:1711.02552 (2017).
\bibitem{amini2022carleman}
A.~Amini, C.~Zheng, Q.~Sun, N.~Motee, Carleman linearization of nonlinear
systems and its finite-section approximations, arXiv preprint
arXiv:2207.07755 (2022).
\bibitem{gonzalez2025quantum}
J.~Gonzalez-Conde, D.~Lewis, S.~S. Bharadwaj, M.~Sanz, Quantum carleman
linearization efficiency in nonlinear fluid dynamics, Physical Review
Research 7~(2) (2025) 023254.
\bibitem{golub1965calculating}
G.~Golub, W.~Kahan, Calculating the singular values and pseudo-inverse of a
matrix, Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Series
B: Numerical Analysis 2~(2) (1965) 205--224.
\bibitem{spielman2001smoothed}
D.~Spielman, S.-H. Teng, Smoothed analysis of algorithms: Why the simplex
algorithm usually takes polynomial time, in: Proceedings of the thirty-third
annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, 2001, pp. 296--305.
\bibitem{kannan2009spectral}
R.~Kannan, S.~Vempala, et~al., Spectral algorithms, Foundations and
Trends{\textregistered} in Theoretical Computer Science 4~(3--4) (2009)
157--288.
\bibitem{rudelson2009smallest}
M.~Rudelson, R.~Vershynin, Smallest singular value of a random rectangular
matrix, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics: A Journal Issued by
the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences 62~(12) (2009) 1707--1739.
\bibitem{litvak2011smallest}
A.~Litvak, O.~Rivasplata, Smallest singular value of sparse random matrices,
arXiv preprint arXiv:1106.0938 (2011).
\bibitem{cohen2015uniform}
M.~B. Cohen, Y.~T. Lee, C.~Musco, C.~Musco, R.~Peng, A.~Sidford, Uniform
sampling for matrix approximation, in: Proceedings of the 2015 conference on
innovations in theoretical computer science, 2015, pp. 181--190.
\bibitem{musco2015randomized}
C.~Musco, C.~Musco, Randomized block krylov methods for stronger and faster
approximate singular value decomposition, Advances in neural information
processing systems 28 (2015).
\bibitem{gotze2023largest}
F.~G{\"o}tze, A.~Tikhomirov, On the largest and the smallest singular value of
sparse rectangular random matrices, Electronic Journal of Probability 28
(2023) 1--18.
\bibitem{chao2020finding}
R.~Chao, D.~Ding, A.~Gilyen, C.~Huang, M.~Szegedy, Finding angles for quantum
signal processing with machine precision, arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.02831
(2020).
\bibitem{dong2021efficient}
Y.~Dong, X.~Meng, K.~B. Whaley, L.~Lin, Efficient phase-factor evaluation in
quantum signal processing, Physical Review A 103~(4) (2021) 042419.
\bibitem{martyn2021grand}
J.~M. Martyn, Z.~M. Rossi, A.~K. Tan, I.~L. Chuang, Grand unification of
quantum algorithms, PRX quantum 2~(4) (2021) 040203.
\bibitem{setty2025block}
A.~Setty, Block encoding of sparse matrices via coherent permutation, arXiv
preprint arXiv:2508.21667 (2025).
\bibitem{gilyen2019quantum}
A.~Gily{\'e}n, Y.~Su, G.~H. Low, N.~Wiebe, Quantum singular value
transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix
arithmetics, in: Proceedings of the 51st annual ACM SIGACT symposium on
theory of computing, 2019, pp. 193--204.
\bibitem{cramer2010efficient}
M.~Cramer, M.~B. Plenio, S.~T. Flammia, R.~Somma, D.~Gross, S.~D. Bartlett,
O.~Landon-Cardinal, D.~Poulin, Y.-K. Liu, Efficient quantum state tomography,
Nature communications 1~(1) (2010) 149.
\bibitem{aaronson2014quantum}
S.~Aaronson, Quantum machine learning algorithms: Read the fine print, Nature
Physics (2014) 5.
\bibitem{cerezo2021cost}
M.~Cerezo, A.~Sone, T.~Volkoff, L.~Cincio, P.~J. Coles, Cost function dependent
barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits, Nature
communications 12~(1) (2021) 1791.
\bibitem{larocca2025barren}
M.~Larocca, S.~Thanasilp, S.~Wang, K.~Sharma, J.~Biamonte, P.~J. Coles,
L.~Cincio, J.~R. McClean, Z.~Holmes, M.~Cerezo, Barren plateaus in
variational quantum computing, Nature Reviews Physics (2025) 1--16.
\bibitem{bergholm2018pennylane}
V.~Bergholm, J.~Izaac, M.~Schuld, C.~Gogolin, S.~Ahmed, V.~Ajith, M.~S. Alam,
G.~Alonso-Linaje, B.~AkashNarayanan, A.~Asadi, et~al., Pennylane: Automatic
differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations, arXiv preprint
arXiv:1811.04968 (2018).
\bibitem{mottonen2004transformation}
M.~Mottonen, J.~J. Vartiainen, V.~Bergholm, M.~M. Salomaa, Transformation of
quantum states using uniformly controlled rotations, arXiv preprint
quant-ph/0407010 (2004).
\bibitem{mottonen2004quantum}
M.~M{\"o}tt{\"o}nen, J.~J. Vartiainen, V.~Bergholm, M.~M. Salomaa, Quantum
circuits for general multiqubit gates, Physical review letters 93~(13) (2004)
130502.
\bibitem{virtanen2020scipy}
P.~Virtanen, R.~Gommers, T.~E. Oliphant, M.~Haberland, T.~Reddy, D.~Cournapeau,
E.~Burovski, P.~Peterson, W.~Weckesser, J.~Bright, et~al., Scipy 1.0:
fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in python, Nature methods
17~(3) (2020) 261--272.
\bibitem{margolus1998maximum}
N.~Margolus, L.~B. Levitin, The maximum speed of dynamical evolution, Physica
D: Nonlinear Phenomena 120~(1-2) (1998) 188--195.
\bibitem{levitin2009fundamental}
L.~B. Levitin, T.~Toffoli, Fundamental limit on the rate of quantum dynamics:
the unified bound is tight, Physical review letters 103~(16) (2009) 160502.
\bibitem{deffner2017quantum}
S.~Deffner, S.~Campbell, Quantum speed limits: from heisenberg’s uncertainty
principle to optimal quantum control, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and
Theoretical 50~(45) (2017) 453001.
\bibitem{low2017hamiltonian}
G.~H. Low, I.~L. Chuang, Hamiltonian simulation by uniform spectral
amplification, arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.05391 (2017).
\bibitem{ames2014numerical}
W.~F. Ames, Numerical methods for partial differential equations, Academic
press, 2014.
\end{thebibliography}