Quick Navigation

Topics

Trapped Ion Quantum Computing

Comparative Analysis on Two Quantum Algorithms for Solving the Heat Equation

arXiv
Authors: Samantha Tseng, Abhyudaya Chouhan, Dominic Cupidon

Year

2025

Paper ID

51824

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

90

Citations

N/A

Abstract

As of now, an optimal quantum algorithm solving partial differential equations eludes us. There are several different methods, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. In past years comparisons of these existing methods have been made, but new work has emerged since then. Therefore, we conducted a survey on quantum methods developed post-2020, applying two such solvers to the heat equation in one spatial dimension. By analyzing their performance (including the cost of classical extraction), we explore their precision and runtime efficiency advancements between the two, identifying advantages and considerations.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2025 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • As of now, an optimal quantum algorithm solving partial differential equations eludes us.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #51824 #68474 Concentration-Free Quantum Kern... #68470 A fluxonium qubit-based hybrid ... #68469 Pitfalls when tackling the expo... #68467 Hong-Ou-Mandel interference of ...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.