aiqbench analysis
This study rigorously benchmarks variational quantum eigensolvers against other dynamics simulation methods for solving partial differential equations, isolating algorithmic limits from sampling noise on state-vector simulators. The analysis reveals that observed performance gaps in noisy hardware runs are largely attributable to measurement shot limitations rather than inherent algorithmic inferiority, providing a clearer error budget for near-term quantum applications.
Performance evaluation of variational quantum eigensolver and quantum dynamics algorithms on the advection-diffusion equation
arXiv:2503.24045v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Near-term quantum algorithms are a promising route to solving partial differential equations, but gauging their true potential requires separating algorithmic performance from sampling and hardware noise. We benchmark a ground-state variational quantum eigensolver (VQE), cast as a variational quantum linear solver, against the Trotterization, variational quantum imaginary time evolution, and adaptive variational quantum dynamics simulation methods applied to the one-dimensional advection-diffusion equation in the recent quantum-dynamics study by Alipanah et al. [Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 043318 (2025)] at matched grid and problem size. On a noiseless state-vector simulator the $N=4$ VQE drives the final-time infidelity to a numerical floor ($\sim\!10^{-14}$) once the depth reaches $L\approx5$, an \emph{algorithmic ceiling} set by exact expectation values. Evaluating the same solver with a finite number $S$ of measurement shots, still without hardware noise, makes the infidelity sampling limited, following $1-f\approx c/S$ (a best-case readout-sampling estimate, with the solution's signs assumed known), providing a regime-matched comparison with the shot-based emulator of Alipanah \emph{et al.}\ and explaining the gap to their noisy hardware runs ($>10^{-1}$). The benchmark thus decomposes the near-term error budget into algorithmic, sampling, and hardware contributions, with a matched-depth resource comparison. The formulation applies without modification across $N=4,5,6$ qubits and to a two-dimensional (eight-qubit, $16\times16$) problem evolved to $t=1$, where the state-vector VQE holds a $\sim\!10^{-7}$ algorithmic-ceiling infidelity against the sampling-limited $\sim\!10^{-5}$ of the corresponding shot-based simulation, a difference of measurement regime rather than algorithmic superiority.
Abstract:Near-term quantum algorithms are a promising route to solving partial differential equations, but gauging their true potential requires separating algorithmic performance from sampling and hardware noise. We benchmark a ground-state variational quantum eigensolver (VQE), cast as a variational quantum linear solver, against the Trotterization, variational quantum imaginary time evolution, and adaptive variational quantum dynamics simulation methods applied to the one-dimensional advection-diffusion equation in the recent quantum-dynamics study by Alipanah et al. [Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 043318 (2025)] at matched grid and problem size. On a noiseless state-vector simulator the $N=4$ VQE drives the final-time infidelity to a numerical floor ($\sim\!10^{-14}$) once the depth reaches $L\approx5$, an \emph{algorithmic ceiling} set by exact expectation values. Evaluating the same solver with a finite number $S$ of measurement shots, still without hardware noise, makes the infidelity sampling limited, following $1-f\approx c/S$ (a best-case readout-sampling estimate, with the solution's signs assumed known), providing a regime-matched comparison with the shot-based emulator of Alipanah \emph{et al.}\ and explaining the gap to their noisy hardware runs ($>10^{-1}$). The benchmark thus decomposes the near-term error budget into algorithmic, sampling, and hardware contributions, with a matched-depth resource comparison. The formulation applies without modification across $N=4,5,6$ qubits and to a two-dimensional (eight-qubit, $16\times16$) problem evolved to $t=1$, where the state-vector VQE holds a $\sim\!10^{-7}$ algorithmic-ceiling infidelity against the sampling-limited $\sim\!10^{-5}$ of the corresponding shot-based simulation, a difference of measurement regime rather than algorithmic superiority.
13 pages, 4 figures. Published version
Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Computational Engineering, Finance, and Science (cs.CE); Emerging Technologies (cs.ET)
arXiv:2503.24045 [quant-ph]
(or arXiv:2503.24045v3 [quant-ph] for this version)
Phys. Rev. E 114, 025306 (2026)
https://doi.org/10.1103/mr76-1wtz DOI(s) linking to related resources
From: A. Barış Özgüler Ph.D. [view email] [v1] Mon, 31 Mar 2025 13:09:59 UTC (293 KB) [v2] Mon, 28 Apr 2025 05:11:52 UTC (294 KB) [v3] Tue, 1 Sep 2026 17:46:54 UTC (241 KB)
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 305 words
Related coverage

Quantum Elements’ Orbit boosts circuit reliability on IBM hardware
Quantum Zeitgeist · Sep 3, 2026

NISQ, What Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum Means
Quantum Zeitgeist · Aug 30, 2026
News Archive 2026
Quantum Computing Report · Jul 25, 2026
Running Variational Quantum Eigensolver with Qiskit Aer on AMD Instinct
AMD · May 29, 2026