Demonstration of Scalability and Accuracy of Variational Quantum Linear Solver for Computational Fluid Dynamics

PDFHTML

The solution for non-linear, complex partial differential Equations (PDEs) is achieved through numerical approximations, which yield a linear system of equations. This approach is prevalent in Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), but it restricts the mesh size since the solution of the linear system becomes computationally intractable when the mesh resolution increases. The reliance on the ability of High-Performance Computers (HPC) to scale up and meet these requirements is myopic; such very high-fidelity simulations require a paradigm shift in computing. This paper presents an exploration of quantum methodologies aimed at achieving high accuracy in solving such a large system of equations. Leveraging recent works in Quantum Linear Solver Algorithms (QLSA) and variational algorithms suitable for Quantum Simulation in HPC, we aspire to push the boundaries of CFD-relevant problems that can be solved on hybrid quantum-classical framework. To this end, we consider the 2D, transient, incompressible, viscous, non-linear coupled Burgers equation as a test problem and investigate the accuracy of our approach by comparing results with a classical linear system of equation solvers, such as the Generalized Minimal RESidual method (GMRES). Through rigorous testing, our findings demonstrate that our quantum methods yield results comparable in accuracy to traditional approaches. Additionally, we demonstrate the accuracy, scalability, and consistency of our quantum method. Lastly, we present an insightful estimation of the resources our quantum algorithm needs to solve systems with nearly 2 billion mesh points.
Submitted 05 Sep 2024 to Fluid Dynamics [physics.flu-dyn]
Published 06 Sep 2024
https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.03241
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.03241.pdf
https://arxiv-vanity.com/papers/2409.03241

View this paper on arXiv.wiki:
https://arxiv.wiki/abs/2409.03241

2 comments

Jake Xuereb Sep 06 2024 09:02 UTC (9 points)

Is SciRate really the place for these types of comments? Is it not more constructive to communicate such feedack privately over an email?

I always felt that SciRate comments were for public discussion that could benefit the authors and also the whole quantum community that might see the reply. This comment does not seem in line with that to me.

Edited Sep 06 2024 09:03 UTC by Jake Xuereb