- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Quantum wave simulation with sources and loss functions

Cyrill Bösch*,†

Malte Schade*, Giacomo Aloisi, Scott D. Keating, and Andreas Fichtner

  • Institute of Geophysics, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland and Department of Computer Science, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, USA

  • Institute of Geophysics, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland

  • *These authors contributed equally to this work.
  • †Contact author: cb7454@cs.princeton.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 033225 – Published 5 September, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/t8wt-mp2l

Abstract

We present a quantum algorithmic framework for simulating linear, anti-Hermitian (lossless) wave equations in heterogeneous, anisotropic, and time-independent media. This framework encompasses a broad class of wave equations, including the acoustic wave equation, Maxwell’s equations, and the elastic wave equation. Our formulation is compatible with standard numerical discretization schemes and allows for the efficient implementation of multiple practically relevant time- and space-dependent sources. Furthermore, we demonstrate that subspace energies can be extracted and wave fields compared through an l2 loss function, achieving optimal precision scaling with the number of samples taken. Additionally, we introduce techniques for incorporating boundary conditions and linear constraints that preserve the anti-Hermitian nature of the equations. Leveraging the Hamiltonian simulation algorithm, our framework achieves a quartic speedup over classical solvers in three-dimensional simulations, under conditions of sufficiently global measurements and compactly supported sources and initial conditions. This quartic speedup is optimal for time-domain solutions, as the Hamiltonian of the discretized wave equations has local couplings. In summary, our framework provides a versatile approach for simulating wave equations on quantum computers, offering substantial speedups over state-of-the-art classical methods.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (106)

  1. A. Fichtner, Full Seismic Waveform Modelling and Inversion, Advances in Geophysical and Environmental Mechanics and Mathematics (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2011)
  2. S. Cesca and F. Grigoli, Full Waveform Seismological Advances for Microseismic Monitoring, in Advances in Geophysics, edited by R. Dmowska (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2015), Vol. 56, Chap. 2, pp. 169–228.
  3. H. Igel, Computational Seismology: A Practical Introduction (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2017).
  4. S. J. Arrowsmith, D. T. Trugman, J. MacCarthy, K. J. Bergen, D. Lumley, and M. B. Magnani, Big data seismology, Rev. Geophys. 60, e2021RG000769 (2022).
  5. R. G. Pratt, L. Huang, N. Duric, and P. Littrup, Sound-speed and attenuation imaging of breast tissue using waveform tomography of transmission ultrasound data, in Medical Imaging 2007: Physics of Medical Imaging, edited by J. Hsieh and M. J. Flynn (SPIE, Bellingham, Washington, USA, 2007), Vol. 6510, pp. 1523–1534.
  6. H. Gemmeke and N. V. Ruiter, 3D ultrasound computer tomography for medical imaging, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A 580, 1057 (2007).
  7. Ultrasound Imaging: Advances and Applications, edited by J. M. Sanches, A. F. Laine, and J. S. Suri (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, 2012).
  8. S. Ould Naffa, M. Goueygou, B. Piwakowski, and F. Buyle-Bodin, Detection of chemical damage in concrete using ultrasound, Ultrasonics 40, 247 (2002).
  9. K. Kim and W. R. Wagner, Non-invasive and non-destructive characterization of tissue engineered constructs using ultrasound imaging technologies: A review, Ann. Biomed. Eng. 44, 621 (2016).
  10. A. Lopez, R. Bacelar, I. Pires, T. G. Santos, J. P. Sousa, and L. Quintino, Non-destructive testing application of radiography and ultrasound for wire and arc additive manufacturing, Addit. Manuf. 21, 298 (2018).
  11. M. P. Bendsoe and O. Sigmund, Topology Optimization: Theory, Methods, and Applications (Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, Germany, 2013).
  12. R. E. Christiansen and O. Sigmund, Inverse design in photonics by topology optimization: tutorial, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 38, 496 (2021).
  13. A. K. Sharma, M. Kosta, G. Shmuel, and O. Amir, Gradient-based topology optimization of soft dielectrics as tunable phononic crystals, Compos. Struct. 280, 114846 (2022).
  14. G. Bordiga, E. Medina, S. Jafarzadeh, C. Bösch, R. P. Adams, V. Tournat, and K. Bertoldi, Automated discovery of reprogrammable nonlinear dynamic metamaterials, Nat. Mater. 23, 1486 (2024).
  15. Ö. Yilmaz, Seismic Data Analysis (Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Houston, Texas, USA, 2001).
  16. A. Fichtner and J. Trampert, Resolution analysis in full waveform inversion, Geophys. J. Int. 187, 1604 (2011).
  17. N. Rawlinson, A. Fichtner, M. Sambridge, and M. K. Young, Seismic tomography and the assessment of uncertainty, in Advances in Geophysics, edited by R. Dmowska (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2014), Vol. 55, Chap. 1, pp. 1–76.
  18. M. Betancourt, A conceptual introduction to Hamiltonian Monte Carlo, arXiv:1701.02434.
  19. M. K. Sen and R. Biswas, Transdimensional seismic inversion using the reversible jump Hamiltonian Monte Carlo algorithm, Geophysics 82, R119 (2017).
  20. A. Fichtner, A. Zunino, and L. Gebraad, Hamiltonian Monte Carlo solution of tomographic inverse problems, Geophys. J. Int. 216, 1344 (2019).
  21. I. E. Ulrich, C. Boehm, A. Zunino, and A. Fichtner, Analyzing resolution and model uncertainties for ultrasound computed tomography using Hessian information, in Medical Imaging 2022: Ultrasonic Imaging and Tomography, edited by N. Bottenus and N. V. Ruiter (SPIE, Bellingham, Washington, 2022), Vol. 12038, pp. 48–60.
  22. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2010), 10th ed.
  23. A. Montanaro, Quantum algorithms: An overview, npj Quantum Inf. 2, 15023 (2016).
  24. 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).
  25. J. M. Martyn, Z. M. Rossi, A. K. Tan, and I. L. Chuang, Grand unification of quantum algorithms, PRX Quantum 2, 040203 (2021).
  26. A. M. Childs and N. Wiebe, Hamiltonian simulation using linear combinations of unitary operations, arXiv:1202.5822.
  27. G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Optimal Hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 010501 (2017).
  28. G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization, Quantum 3, 163 (2019).
  29. G. H. Low, Y. Su, Y. Tong, and M. C. Tran, Complexity of implementing trotter steps, PRX Quantum 4, 020323 (2023).
  30. P. C. S. Costa, S. Jordan, and A. Ostrander, Quantum algorithm for simulating the wave equation, Phys. Rev. A 99, 012323 (2019).
  31. A. Suau, G. Staffelbach, and H. Calandra, Practical quantum computing: Solving the wave equation using a quantum approach, ACM Trans. Quantum Comput. 2, 1 (2021).
  32. E. Koukoutsis, K. Hizanidis, A. K. Ram, and G. Vahala, Dyson maps and unitary evolution for Maxwell equations in tensor dielectric media, Phys. Rev. A 107, 042215 (2023).
  33. Y. Sato, R. Kondo, I. Hamamura, T. Onodera, and N. Yamamoto, Hamiltonian simulation for hyperbolic partial differential equations by scalable quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033246 (2024).
  34. Y. Sato, H. Tezuka, R. Kondo, and N. Yamamoto, Quantum algorithm for partial differential equations of nonconservative systems with spatially varying parameters, Phys. Rev. Appl. 23, 014063 (2025).
  35. M. Schade, C. Bösch, V. Hapla, and A. Fichtner, A quantum computing concept for 1-D elastic wave simulation with exponential speedup, Geophys. J. Int. 238, 321 (2024).
  36. R. Babbush, D. W. Berry, R. Kothari, R. D. Somma, and N. Wiebe, Exponential quantum speedup in simulating coupled classical oscillators, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041041 (2023).
  37. Y. Ito, Y. Tanaka, and K. Fujii, How to map linear differential equations to Schrödinger equations via Carleman and Koopman-von Neumann embeddings for quantum algorithms, arXiv:2311.15628.
  38. S. Danz, M. Berta, S. Schröder, P. Kienast, F. K. Wilhelm, and A. Ciani, Calculating response functions of coupled oscillators using quantum phase estimation, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 023264 (2025).
  39. S. Jin, N. Liu, and C. Ma, Quantum simulation of Maxwell’s equations via Schrödingerisation, ESAIM: Math. Modell. Numer. Anal. 58, 1853 (2024).
  40. S. Jin, N. Liu, and Y. Yu, Quantum simulation of partial differential equations: Applications and detailed analysis, Phys. Rev. A 108, 032603 (2023).
  41. C. Ma, S. Jin, N. Liu, K. Wang, and L. Zhang, Schrödingerization based quantum circuits for maxwell’s equation with time-dependent source terms, arXiv:2411.10999.
  42. S. G. Johnson, Notes on the algebraic structure of wave equations (2007), https://math.mit.edu/~stevenj/18.369/wave-equations.pdf.
  43. A. Mostafazadeh, Pseudo-Hermitian representation of quantum mechanics, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 07, 1191 (2010).
  44. M. Kaltenbacher, Fundamental equations of acoustics, in Computational Acoustics (Springer International Publishing, Springer Berlin, Germany, 2018), p. 12.
  45. D. J. Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2023).
  46. S. G. Johnson and J. D. Joannopoulos, Photonic Crystals: The Road from Theory to Practice (Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, Germany, 2001).
  47. J. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA, 2021).
  48. H.-L. Liu, Y.-S. Wu, L.-C. Wan, S.-J. Pan, S.-J. Qin, F. Gao, and Q.-Y. Wen, Variational quantum algorithm for the Poisson equation, Phys. Rev. A 104, 022418 (2021).
  49. Y. Sato, R. Kondo, S. Koide, H. Takamatsu, and N. Imoto, Variational quantum algorithm based on the minimum potential energy for solving the Poisson equation, Phys. Rev. A 104, 052409 (2021).
  50. W. Voigt, Lehrbuch der Kristallphysik (Vieweg und Teubner Verlag, Wiesbaden, Germany, 1966).
  51. C. Scheibner, A. Souslov, D. Banerjee, P. Surówka, W. T. M. Irvine, and V. Vitelli, Odd elasticity, Nat. Phys. 16, 475 (2020).
  52. K. Aki and P. G. Richards, Quantitative Seismology (University Science Books, Melville, New York, USA, 2002), 2nd ed.
  53. L. Landau, L. Pitaevskii, A. Kosevich, and E. Lifshitz, Theory of Elasticity (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, 2012), Vol. 7, Bd. 7.
  54. J. Virieux, SH-wave propagation in heterogeneous media; velocity-stress finite-difference method, Geophysics 49, 1933 (1984).
  55. K. Yee, Numerical solution of initial boundary value problems involving Maxwell’s equations in isotropic media, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 14, 302 (1966).
  56. A. Taflove, S. C. Hagness, and M. Piket-May, Computational electromagnetics: The finite-difference time-domain method, in The Electrical Engineering Handbook, edited by W.-K. Chen (Academic Press, Burlington, 2005), pp. 629–670.
  57. J. Hoepffner, Implementation of boundary conditions (2007), https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~hoepffner/boundarycondition.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiT6LbkoZmPAxUx0QIHHUoEBXsQFnoECBU QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0alHuB1iTPd4iOdkdTkZtr.
  58. L. Banjai and S. Sauter, Rapid solution of the wave equation in unbounded domains, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 47, 227 (2009).
  59. Z.-G. Qian and W. C. Chew, Fast full-wave surface integral equation solver for multiscale structure modeling, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 57, 3594 (2009).
  60. J.-G. Wei, Z. Peng, and J.-F. Lee, A fast direct matrix solver for surface integral equation methods for electromagnetic wave scattering from non-penetrable targets, Radio Sci. 47, 2012RS004988 (2012).
  61. S. Omar and D. Jiao, A linear complexity direct volume integral equation solver for full-wave 3-D circuit extraction in inhomogeneous materials, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech. 63, 897 (2015).
  62. F. Smith, S. Tsynkov, and E. Turkel, Compact high order accurate schemes for the three dimensional wave equation, J. Sci. Comput. 81, 1181 (2019).
  63. A. V. Oppenheim, A. S. Willsky, and S. H. Nawab, Signals & Systems (Pearson Educación, London, UK, 1997).
  64. C. Johnson, Finite element methods for linear hyperbolic problems, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 45, 285 (1984).
  65. R. J. LeVeque, Finite Volume Methods for Hyperbolic Problems (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2002).
  66. J. C. Strikwerda, Finite Difference Schemes and Partial Differential Equations (SIAM, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States, 2004).
  67. J. Crank and P. Nicolson, A practical method for numerical evaluation of solutions of partial differential equations of the heat-conduction type, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 43, 50 (1947).
  68. D. Camps, L. Lin, R. Van Beeumen, and C. Yang, Explicit quantum circuits for block encodings of certain sparse matrices, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 45, 801 (2024).
  69. S. Ty, R. Vilmart, A. TahmasebiMoradi, and C. Mang, Double-logarithmic depth block-encodings of simple finite difference method’s matrices, arXiv:2410.05241.
  70. C. Sünderhauf, E. Campbell, and J. Camps, Block-encoding structured matrices for data input in quantum computing, Quantum 8, 1226 (2024).
  71. 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).
  72. J. Welch, D. Greenbaum, S. Mostame, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Efficient quantum circuits for diagonal unitaries without ancillas, New J. Phys. 16, 033040 (2014).
  73. M. R. Garey, D. S. Johnson, and L. Stockmeyer, Some simplified np-complete problems, in Proceedings of the Sixth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’74 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, USA, 1974), pp. 47–63.
  74. L. Grover and T. Rudolph, Creating superpositions that correspond to efficiently integrable probability distributions, arXiv:quant-ph/0208112.
  75. A. W. Harrow and A. Y. Wei, Adaptive quantum simulated annealing for bayesian inference and estimating partition functions, in Proceedings of the 2020 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) (SIAM, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States, 2019), pp. 193–212.
  76. P. Rall and B. Fuller, Amplitude estimation from quantum signal processing, Quantum 7, 937 (2023).
  77. H. Krovi, Quantum algorithms to simulate quadratic classical Hamiltonians and optimal control, arXiv:2404.07303.
  78. E. Koukoutsis, K. Hizanidis, A. K. Ram, and G. Vahala, Quantum simulation of dissipation for Maxwell equations in dispersive media, Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 159, 221 (2024).
  79. Z. Hu, R. Xia, and S. Kais, A quantum algorithm for evolving open quantum dynamics on quantum computing devices, Sci. Rep. 10, 3301 (2020).
  80. D. An, J.-P. Liu, and L. Lin, Linear combination of Hamiltonian simulation for nonunitary dynamics with optimal state preparation cost, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 150603 (2023).
  81. D. An, A. M. Childs, and L. Lin, Quantum algorithm for linear non-unitary dynamics with near-optimal dependence on all parameters, arXiv:2312.03916.
  82. H. Nassar, H. Chen, A. N. Norris, and G. L. Huang, Quantization of band tilting in modulated phononic crystals, Phys. Rev. B 97, 014305 (2018).
  83. H. Chen, L. Yao, H. Nassar, and G. Huang, Mechanical quantum Hall effect in time-modulated elastic materials, Phys. Rev. Appl. 11, 044029 (2019).
  84. E. Galiffi, R. Tirole, S. Yin, H. Li, S. Vezzoli, P. A. Huidobro, M. G. Silveirinha, R. Sapienza, A. Alù, and J. B. Pendry, Photonics of time-varying media, Adv. Photonics 4, 014002 (2022).
  85. C. Bösch, A. Fichtner, and M. Serra-Garcia, Differences between quantum and classical adiabatic evolution, Phys. Rev. B 110, 064307 (2024).
  86. L. Clinton, J. Bausch, and T. Cubitt, Hamiltonian simulation algorithms for near-term quantum hardware, Nat. Commun. 12, 4989 (2021).
  87. Y. Kikuchi, C. Mc Keever, L. Coopmans, M. Lubasch, and M. Benedetti, Realization of quantum signal processing on a noisy quantum computer, npj Quantum Inf. 9, 93 (2023).
  88. 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).
  89. R. Acharya et al. (Google Quantum AI and Collaborators), Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature (London) 638, 920 (2025).
  90. C. Bösch, M. Schade, G. Aloisi, S. D. Keating, and A. Fichtner, Code: Quantum wave simulation with sources and loss functions (2025), https://github.com/malteschade/.
  91. R. Iten, R. Colbeck, I. Kukuljan, J. Home, and M. Christandl, Quantum circuits for isometries, Phys. Rev. A 93, 032318 (2016).
  92. Y. He, M.-X. Luo, E. Zhang, H.-K. Wang, and X.-F. Wang, Decompositions of n-qubit Toffoli gates with linear circuit complexity, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 56, 2350 (2017).
  93. B. Zindorf and S. Bose, Efficient implementation of multi-controlled quantum gates, arXiv:2404.02279.
  94. E. A. Martinez, T. Monz, D. Nigg, P. Schindler, and R. Blatt, Compiling quantum algorithms for architectures with multi-qubit gates, New J. Phys. 18, 063029 (2016).
  95. N. Goel and J. K. Freericks, Native multiqubit Toffoli gates on ion trap quantum computers, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 044010 (2021).
  96. Y. Kim, A. Morvan, L. B. Nguyen, R. K. Naik, C. Jünger, L. Chen, J. M. Kreikebaum, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, High-fidelity three-qubit iToffoli gate for fixed-frequency superconducting qubits, Nat. Phys. 18, 783 (2022).
  97. E. Knill, G. Ortiz, and R. D. Somma, Optimal quantum measurements of expectation values of observables, Phys. Rev. A 75, 012328 (2007).
  98. N. Gleinig and T. Hoefler, An efficient algorithm for sparse quantum state preparation, in 2021 58th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) (IEEE, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2021), pp. 433–438.
  99. E. Malvetti, R. Iten, and R. Colbeck, Quantum circuits for sparse isometries, Quantum 5, 412 (2021).
  100. T. M. L. de Veras, L. D. da Silva, and A. J. da Silva, Double sparse quantum state preparation, Quantum Inf. Proc. 21, 204 (2022).
  101. X.-M. Zhang, T. Li, and X. Yuan, Quantum state preparation with optimal circuit depth: Implementations and applications, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 230504 (2022).
  102. R. Vale, T. M. D. Azevedo, I. C. S. Araújo, I. F. Araujo, and A. J. da Silva, Circuit decomposition of multicontrolled special unitary single-qubit gates, IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 43, 802 (2024).
  103. R. L. Higdon, Absorbing boundary conditions for acoustic and elastic waves in stratified media, J. Comput. Phys. 101, 386 (1992).
  104. J.-P. Berenger, A perfectly matched layer for the absorption of electromagnetic waves, J. Comput. Phys. 114, 185 (SEG, Houston, Texas, USA, 1994).
  105. R. G. Clapp, Reverse time migration with random boundaries, in SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2009 (Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 2009), pp. 2809–2813.
  106. X. Shen and R. G. Clapp, Random boundary condition for memory-efficient waveform inversion gradient computation, Geophysics 80, R351 (2015).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 033225– Published 5 September, 2025
  • Received 8 February 2025
  • Accepted 28 July 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation