Hybrid Quantum–Classical Variational Reconstruction of CFD Fields Using VQAs

SURBHI SHARMA; Rashmi Bhardwaj; Debabrata  Datta

doi:10.5269/bspm.81302

SURBHI SHARMA GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY, DELHI,INDIA
Rashmi Bhardwaj GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRARASTHA UNIVERSITY, DELHI, INDIA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0502-762X
Debabrata Datta Heritage Institute of Technology, Kolkata

Resumo

High-fidelity reconstruction of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) fields is a central challenge in reduced-order modelling, flow control and large-scale scientific simulations, where classical approaches face severe scalability and nonlinearity limitations. In this work, we investigate the feasibility of a hybrid quantum–classical framework for reconstructing CFD solution snapshots using variational quantum algorithms (VQAs) on near-term quantum hardware. The proposed approach achieved very high reconstruction fidelities ranging from 0.8696 to 0.9369 and low L2 errors between 0.2532 and 0.3673, demonstrating accurate quantum approximation of fluid fields on near-term quantum hardware. These results significantly outperform earlier low-fidelity attempts, confirming that VQA-based surrogate modelling can successfully capture spatial patterns and flow structures even with shallow circuits. The study highlights the potential of hybrid VQA frameworks as scalable alternatives to classical CFD post-processing and reduced-order modelling.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Referências

1. A. Peruzzo et al., “A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,” Nature Communications, vol. 5, 2014.
2. J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 023023, 2016.
3. M. Benedetti, E. Lloyd, S. Sack, and M. Fiorentini, “Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 4, 2019.
4. K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii, “Quantum circuit learning,” Physical Review A, vol. 98, 2018.
5. S. Lloyd, M. Mohseni, and P. Rebentrost, “Quantum algorithms for supervised and unsupervised machine learning,” arXiv:1307.0411, 2013.
6. P. Rebentrost, M. Mohseni, and S. Lloyd, “Quantum support vector machine for big data classification,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 113, 2014.
7. J. Romero, J. Olson, and A. Aspuru‐Guzik, “Quantum autoencoders for efficient compression of quantum data,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 2, 2017.
8. J. Biamonte et al., “Quantum machine learning,” Nature, vol. 549, pp. 195–202, 2017.
9. C. Bravo-Prieto et al., “Style-based quantum generative adversarial networks for modelling distributions,” Nature Communications, vol. 12, 2021.
10. J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond,” Quantum, vol. 2, 2018.
11. A. Montanaro, “Quantum algorithms: An overview,” npj Quantum Information, vol. 2, 2016.
12. G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, “Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization,” Quantum, vol. 3, 2019.
13. C. Cao et al., “Toward quantum computational fluid dynamics,” arXiv:2011.03185, 2020.
14. Y. Peng, Y. Sun, and J. Qian, “Quantum algorithms for solving Navier–Stokes equations,” arXiv:2008.10613, 2020.
15. E. F. Dumitrescu et al., “Cloud quantum computing of an atomic nucleus,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 120, 2018.
16. M. Lubasch et al., “Variational quantum algorithms for nonlinear problems,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 5, 2020.
17. D. Leyton-Ortega, B. Gard, and R. D. Sorkin, “A quantum algorithm for fluid dynamics,” arXiv:2012.10988, 2021.
18. N. Bhatia, D. Bienias, and A. Kolmogorov, “Quantum reduced-order models for PDEs,” arXiv:2101.08448, 2021.
19. M. Taira et al., “Modal analysis of fluid flows: An overview,” AIAA Journal, vol. 58, 2020.
20. P. Holmes, J. L. Lumley, G. Berkooz, and C. Rowley, Turbulence, Coherent Structures, Dynamical Systems and Symmetry, Cambridge University Press, 2012.
21. B. R. Noack et al., “A hierarchy of low-dimensional models for the transient and post-transient cylinder wake,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 497, 2003.
22. S. L. Brunton and J. N. Kutz, Data-Driven Science and Engineering: Machine Learning, Dynamical Systems, and Control, Springer, 2019.
23. K. Willcox and J. Peraire, “Balanced model reduction via the proper orthogonal decomposition,” AIAA Journal, vol. 40, 2002.
24. M. Benosman, “Model order reduction for systems with parametric variability,” Systems & Control Letters, vol. 135, 2020.
25. Z. Wang, I. Akhtar, J. Borggaard, and L. A. Rizza, “Reduced order modelling of fluid flows using machine learning,” Computers & Fluids, vol. 179, 2019.
26. Y. Schuld and F. Petruccione, Supervised Learning with Quantum Computers, Springer, 2018.
27. S. Havlíček et al., “Supervised learning with quantum-enhanced feature spaces,” Nature, vol. 567, pp. 209–212, 2019.
28. A. Abbas et al., “The power of quantum neural networks,” Nature Computational Science, vol. 1, 2021.
29. T. Kadeřábek and P. Černý, “Amplitude encoding strategies for quantum machine learning,” Quantum Information Processing, vol. 21, 2022.
30. I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, and A. Courville, Deep Learning, MIT Press, 2016 (for hybrid architectures & optimizers).
31. S. Sim, P. D. Johnson, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “Expressibility and entangling capability of parameterized quantum circuits,” Advanced Quantum Technologies, 2019.
32. E. Grant et al., “An initialization strategy for addressing barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms,” Quantum, vol. 3, 2019.
33. F. Yu Fang, C. Xue, T.-P. Sun, et al., PolyQROM: Orthogonal-Polynomial-Based Quantum Reduced-Order Model for Flow Field Analysis, 2025.
34. Reduced-order modeling on a near-term quantum computer, Journal of Computational Physics, 510, 113070, 2024.
35. Solving transport equations on quantum computers—potential and limitations of physics-informed quantum circuits, CEAS Aeronautical Journal, 16:63–80, 2025.