A Residual-Based Quantum Linear System Algorithm with Dynamic Stopping and Applications to Elliptic PDEs

Xiantao Li

arxiv: 2605.06414 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · 🪐 quant-ph

A Residual-Based Quantum Linear System Algorithm with Dynamic Stopping and Applications to Elliptic PDEs

Xiantao Li This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 11:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords quantum linear system algorithmelliptic PDEresidual monitoringdynamic stoppingfinite element discretizationPoisson equationaugmented dynamicsGalerkin solution

0 comments

The pith

Augmented quantum dynamics for elliptic PDEs supplies a residual register that signals convergence on the fly.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper constructs a stable first-order ODE whose long-time limit encodes the Galerkin solution of an elliptic PDE discretization whose matrix has the factored form G dagger G. It then augments the dynamics with auxiliary residual variables so that a single measurement on the residual register yields a probability that tracks the true solution error without ever assembling the full state vector. Because the PDE scale is only O(h to the minus one), this indicator permits dynamic early stopping instead of a conservative fixed evolution time drawn from worst-case spectral bounds. For smooth right-hand sides the approach therefore shortens total gate count and may limit exposure to accumulated hardware noise. Numerical tests on a two-dimensional finite-element Poisson problem confirm that the residual probability decays in step with the actual error.

Core claim

For discretizations of elliptic PDEs with the structure A_h equals G_h dagger G_h we formulate a stable first-order ODE whose limiting solution block is the desired Galerkin solution. An augmented dynamics is introduced that carries residual variables; measuring the residual register then furnishes an on-the-fly convergence indicator without reconstructing the solution vector. For smooth right-hand sides this permits dynamic stopping that reduces evolution time and gate count relative to a fixed worst-case schedule, while numerical experiments on a two-dimensional finite-element Poisson problem show that the residual-register probability follows the actual error decay.

What carries the argument

Augmented first-order ODE dynamics that embeds the Galerkin solution of the elliptic discretization and adds residual variables whose measurement probability serves as a built-in convergence flag.

Load-bearing premise

The probability obtained by measuring the residual register accurately tracks the true error decay of the solution vector for the proposed augmented dynamics.

What would settle it

A concrete run in which the residual-register probability falls below the target tolerance yet the reconstructed solution error remains above that tolerance for the same elliptic PDE instance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.06414 by Xiantao Li.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Right-hand-side dependence for the finite element Poisson problem. Left: a QSVT-style view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Checkpoint circuit for residual-based stopping. Each checkpoint run prepares the initial view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Finite element setup for the model Poisson problem. Left: the uniform triangular mesh view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Residual dynamics and checkpoint readout. Left: relative solution error, relative algebraic view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Quantum linear-system algorithms (QLSAs) have rigorous worst-case complexity guarantees, but their runtimes are often chosen from spectral information assumed in advance. What is largely lacking is an a posteriori progress flag: most QLSA workflows, unlike the classical counterparts, do not provide a built-in mechanism to signal whether a particular instance has already converged. For discretizations of elliptic PDEs $-\nabla\cdot(a(x)\nabla u(x))=f(x),$ with divergence--gradient structure \[ -\nabla\cdot \big(a(x)\nabla) \approx A_h=G_h^\dagger G_h, \] we formulate a stable first-order ODE whose limiting solution block is the desired Galerkin solution. The PDE-dependent scale is then $\norm{G_h}=\bigO(h^{-1})$, comparable to factorized QLSA constructions with square-root condition-number scaling. We design an augmented dynamics with residual variables, in which measuring a residual register gives an on-the-fly convergence indicator without reconstructing the solution vector. For smooth right-hand sides, dynamic stopping can reduce the evolution time and gate count relative to a fixed worst-case schedule, and may also reduce exposure to accumulated hardware errors. Numerical experiments for a two-dimensional finite element Poisson problem show that the residual-register probability follows the actual error decay and, for some right-hand sides, can stop the quantum circuit well before a conservative worst-case runtime estimate is reached.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper adds residual variables to a quantum ODE for elliptic PDE linear systems so a measurable probability can flag early stopping, but this rests on one numerical example without a general bound.

read the letter

The core contribution is an augmented first-order ODE for QLSA on divergence-gradient discretizations of elliptic PDEs. By adding residual variables to the dynamics, measuring the residual register gives a convergence indicator without reconstructing the full solution vector. For smooth right-hand sides the authors claim this lets you stop earlier than a fixed worst-case schedule based on the O(h^{-1}) scale of G_h, and the 2D finite-element Poisson numerics show the residual probability tracking the actual error decay in some cases. That is the practical angle: most QLSA workflows lack any built-in a posteriori check, so an observable flag could matter for hardware error accumulation and runtime on structured problems. The construction itself looks coherent from the abstract and is presented as new rather than a direct carry-over from prior work. The numerics are at least honest about showing early stopping on some right-hand sides. The main limitation is that the central claim—residual-register probability reliably and monotonically tracks the Galerkin error so a threshold can be used safely—comes from observation on a single 2D Poisson instance. No general inequality or proof is referenced that would guarantee the relation for arbitrary elliptic operators or less smooth data, which leaves the dynamic-stopping benefit unproven beyond the example. If the augmented system only ensures joint convergence without a tight observable proxy, the early-stop schedule cannot be certified as always safe or always faster. This is the sort of paper that belongs in a quantum algorithms for scientific computing reading group. A reader already working on QLSA or quantum PDE solvers will get value from the concrete construction and the numerical hint, even if they have to supply their own error analysis. It is coherent enough on its own terms to deserve a serious referee rather than a desk reject; the gaps are fixable with added bounds or more examples, and the underlying idea addresses a real usability issue.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a quantum linear-system algorithm for discretized elliptic PDEs based on a stable first-order ODE whose limiting block is the Galerkin solution. It augments the dynamics with residual variables so that measurement of a residual register supplies an on-the-fly convergence indicator, enabling dynamic stopping. For smooth right-hand sides the approach is claimed to reduce evolution time and gate count relative to a fixed worst-case schedule; numerical experiments on a two-dimensional finite-element Poisson problem are presented to show that the residual-register probability tracks the actual error decay.

Significance. If the residual probability can be shown to serve as a reliable, observable-only proxy for the Galerkin error, the work would supply a practical a-posteriori progress flag that is largely absent from existing QLSA workflows. The exploitation of the divergence-gradient structure to obtain O(h^{-1}) scaling and the possibility of reduced exposure to hardware errors are potentially valuable for near-term PDE applications.

major comments (2)

[Augmented dynamics and abstract] Abstract and description of the augmented dynamics: the central claim that a threshold on the residual-register probability permits safe early stopping without reconstructing the full solution vector requires that this probability be monotonically related to the true Galerkin error ||u_h - u_h(t)|| (or an equivalent norm). No a-priori inequality or theorem is supplied that relates the residual observable to the error for general elliptic operators A_h = G_h^† G_h with ||G_h|| = O(h^{-1}); only numerical observation for a single 2D Poisson instance is given. This is load-bearing for certifying that dynamic stopping is reliable and runtime-reducing in general.
[Numerical experiments] Numerical experiments section: while the residual probability is reported to follow error decay, no quantitative data are supplied on the frequency with which early stopping occurs, the achieved reduction in evolution time, or the gate-count savings for the tested right-hand sides. Without these figures the practical benefit asserted in the abstract cannot be assessed.

minor comments (2)

[Introduction / PDE formulation] The notation for the divergence-gradient structure (A_h = G_h^† G_h) would be clearer if the explicit definitions of G_h and the finite-element spaces were stated once in the main text rather than left implicit from the abstract.
[ODE formulation] Several derivation steps for the stable first-order ODE and the precise form of the residual augmentation are only sketched; expanding them would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below, providing clarifications and indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Abstract and description of the augmented dynamics: the central claim that a threshold on the residual-register probability permits safe early stopping without reconstructing the full solution vector requires that this probability be monotonically related to the true Galerkin error ||u_h - u_h(t)|| (or an equivalent norm). No a-priori inequality or theorem is supplied that relates the residual observable to the error for general elliptic operators A_h = G_h^† G_h with ||G_h|| = O(h^{-1}); only numerical observation for a single 2D Poisson instance is given. This is load-bearing for certifying that dynamic stopping is reliable and runtime-reducing in general.

Authors: We agree that a general a priori inequality establishing monotonicity between the residual-register probability and the Galerkin error for arbitrary elliptic operators would provide stronger certification. The manuscript constructs the augmented dynamics specifically to embed residual variables that monitor deviation from the steady-state Galerkin solution, and the numerical experiments on the 2D Poisson problem demonstrate that the measured probability tracks the error decay for smooth right-hand sides, enabling early stopping. We will revise the abstract and relevant discussion sections to explicitly state that dynamic stopping is supported by this observed correlation as a practical heuristic for the considered class of problems, while noting that a general theoretical bound remains open. This revision clarifies the scope without overstating the current results. revision: partial
Referee: Numerical experiments section: while the residual probability is reported to follow error decay, no quantitative data are supplied on the frequency with which early stopping occurs, the achieved reduction in evolution time, or the gate-count savings for the tested right-hand sides. Without these figures the practical benefit asserted in the abstract cannot be assessed.

Authors: We acknowledge that the experiments section illustrates the tracking behavior via plots but does not provide explicit quantitative metrics on stopping frequency, time reductions, or gate-count savings. In the revised manuscript we will add a table summarizing, for each tested right-hand side, the evolution time at which the residual threshold is reached, the achieved error at stopping, the conservative worst-case time, and the estimated gate-count reduction relative to the fixed schedule. This will allow direct assessment of the practical benefits for the 2D finite-element Poisson instances. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: residual dynamics and convergence indicator derived from augmented ODE without reduction to inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper introduces a stable first-order ODE whose limiting block is the Galerkin solution for the elliptic discretization A_h = G_h^† G_h, then augments it with residual variables to produce an on-the-fly convergence indicator via residual-register measurement. This construction is presented as new, with the probability tracking error decay asserted via numerical experiments on a 2D finite-element Poisson problem rather than by fitting parameters or invoking prior self-citations as load-bearing. No quoted step equates a claimed prediction or uniqueness result to its own inputs by definition; the derivation chain remains self-contained against the stated ODE and empirical validation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the stability of the first-order ODE whose limit is the Galerkin solution and on the residual probability serving as a faithful error proxy; both are domain assumptions for the chosen PDE structure and are only numerically illustrated rather than proved in general.

free parameters (1)

PDE-dependent scale = O(h^{-1})
The norm of G_h is taken as O(h^{-1}) from the divergence-gradient discretization structure to set the evolution timescale.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The formulated first-order ODE is stable and its limiting solution block is the desired Galerkin solution for the elliptic PDE discretization.
Invoked to justify the quantum dynamics construction for problems with -div(a grad) structure.

invented entities (1)

augmented dynamics with residual variables/register no independent evidence
purpose: To provide a measurable on-the-fly convergence indicator without reconstructing the solution vector.
Newly postulated component of the quantum system whose measurement yields the stopping signal.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5547 in / 1509 out tokens · 68250 ms · 2026-05-08T11:05:24.785349+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

[1]

Variable Time Amplitude Amplification and Quantum Algorithms for Linear Algebra Problems

Andris Ambainis. Variable Time Amplitude Amplification and Quantum Algorithms for Linear Algebra Problems. In29th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2012), volume 14 ofLeibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, pages 636–647, 2012

work page 2012
[2]

Childs, and Lin Lin

Dong An, Andrew M. Childs, and Lin Lin. Quantum Algorithm for Linear Non-Unitary Dynamics with Near-Optimal Dependence on All Parameters, 2023

work page 2023
[3]

Childs, Lin Lin, and Lexing Ying

Dong An, Andrew M. Childs, Lin Lin, and Lexing Ying. Laplace Transform Based Quantum Eigenvalue Transformation via Linear Combination of Hamiltonian Simulation, 2024

work page 2024
[4]

Dong An and Lin Lin. Quantum Linear System Solver Based on Time-Optimal Adiabatic Quantum Computing and Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm.ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 3(2):5:1–5:28, 2022

work page 2022
[5]

Linear Combination of Hamiltonian Simulation for Nonunitary Dynamics with Optimal State Preparation Cost.Physical Review Letters, 131:150603, 2023

Dong An, Jin-Peng Liu, and Lin Lin. Linear Combination of Hamiltonian Simulation for Nonunitary Dynamics with Optimal State Preparation Cost.Physical Review Letters, 131:150603, 2023. 20

work page 2023
[6]

Berry, Andrew M

Dominic W. Berry, Andrew M. Childs, Aaron Ostrander, and Guoming Wang. Quantum Algo- rithm for Linear Differential Equations with Exponentially Improved Dependence on Precision. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 356(3):1057–1081, 2017

work page 2017
[7]

Bramble, Joseph E

James H. Bramble, Joseph E. Pasciak, and Jinchao Xu. Parallel Multilevel Preconditioners. Mathematics of Computation, 55(191):1–22, 1990

work page 1990
[8]

Brenner and L

Susanne C. Brenner and L. Ridgway Scott.The Mathematical Theory of Finite Element Methods, volume 15 ofTexts in Applied Mathematics. Springer, New York, 3 edition, 2008

work page 2008
[9]

Convergence of the Mimetic Finite Difference Method for Diffusion Problems on Polyhedral Meshes.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 43(5):1872–1896, 2005

Franco Brezzi, Konstantin Lipnikov, and Mikhail Shashkov. Convergence of the Mimetic Finite Difference Method for Diffusion Problems on Polyhedral Meshes.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 43(5):1872–1896, 2005

work page 2005
[10]

Explicit Quantum Circuits for Block Encodings of Certain Sparse Matrices.SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applica- tions, 45(1):801–827, 2024

Daan Camps, Lin Lin, Roel Van Beeumen, and Chao Yang. Explicit Quantum Circuits for Block Encodings of Certain Sparse Matrices.SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applica- tions, 45(1):801–827, 2024

work page 2024
[11]

Quan- tum Algorithm and Circuit Design Solving the Poisson Equation.New Journal of Physics, 15:013021, 2013

Yudong Cao, Anargyros Papageorgiou, Iasonas Petras, Joseph Traub, and Sabre Kais. Quan- tum Algorithm and Circuit Design Solving the Poisson Equation.New Journal of Physics, 15:013021, 2013

work page 2013
[12]

Childs, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D

Andrew M. Childs, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D. Somma. Quantum Algorithm for Systems of Linear Equations with Exponentially Improved Dependence on Precision.SIAM Journal on Computing, 46(6):1920–1950, 2017

work page 1920
[13]

Childs, Jin-Peng Liu, and Aaron Ostrander

Andrew M. Childs, Jin-Peng Liu, and Aaron Ostrander. High-Precision Quantum Algorithms for Partial Differential Equations.Quantum, 5:574, 2021

work page 2021
[14]

Ciarlet.The Finite Element Method for Elliptic Problems, volume 4 ofStudies in Mathematics and its Applications

Philippe G. Ciarlet.The Finite Element Method for Elliptic Problems, volume 4 ofStudies in Mathematics and its Applications. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1978

work page 1978
[15]

David Clader, Bryan C

B. David Clader, Bryan C. Jacobs, and Chad R. Sprouse. Preconditioned Quantum Linear System Algorithm.Physical Review Letters, 110:250504, 2013

work page 2013
[16]

Pedro C. S. Costa, Dong An, Yuval R. Sanders, Yuan Su, Ryan Babbush, and Dominic W. Berry. Optimal Scaling Quantum Linear-Systems Solver via Discrete Adiabatic Theorem.PRX Quantum, 3:040303, 2022

work page 2022
[17]

Quantum Realization of the Finite Element Method, 2024

Matthias Deiml and Daniel Peterseim. Quantum Realization of the Finite Element Method, 2024

work page 2024
[18]

Quantum Singular Value Transformation and Beyond: Exponential Improvements for Quantum Matrix Arithmetics

Andr´ as Gily´ en, Yuan Su, Guang Hao Low, and Nathan Wiebe. Quantum Singular Value Transformation and Beyond: Exponential Improvements for Quantum Matrix Arithmetics. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 193–204, 2019

work page 2019
[19]

Golub and Charles F

Gene H. Golub and Charles F. Van Loan.Matrix Computations. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 4 edition, 2013

work page 2013
[20]

Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd

Aram W. Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum Algorithm for Linear Systems of Equations.Physical Review Letters, 103:150502, 2009. 21

work page 2009
[21]

Hyman, Mikhail Shashkov, and Stanly Steinberg

James M. Hyman, Mikhail Shashkov, and Stanly Steinberg. The Numerical Solution of Diffu- sion Problems in Strongly Heterogeneous Non-Isotropic Materials.Journal of Computational Physics, 132(1):130–148, 1997

work page 1997
[22]

Lowrie, Sam Pallister, and Andrew T

David Jennings, Matteo Lostaglio, Robert B. Lowrie, Sam Pallister, and Andrew T. Sorn- borger. The Cost of Solving Linear Differential Equations on a Quantum Computer: Fast- Forwarding to Explicit Resource Counts.Quantum, 8:1553, 2024

work page 2024
[23]

Sornborger, and Yi˘ git Suba¸ sı

David Jennings, Matteo Lostaglio, Sam Pallister, Andrew T. Sornborger, and Yi˘ git Suba¸ sı. Randomized Adiabatic Quantum Linear Solver Algorithm with Optimal Complexity Scaling and Detailed Running Costs.PRX Quantum, 6(4):040373, 2025

work page 2025
[24]

Shi Jin and Nana Liu. Quantum Simulation of Discrete Linear Dynamical Systems and Simple Iterative Methods in Linear Algebra via Schr¨ odingerisation.Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 480(2291):20230370, 2024

work page 2024
[25]

Quantum Preconditioning Method for Linear Systems Problems, 2025

Shi Jin, Nana Liu, Yue Ma, and Yue Yu. Quantum Preconditioning Method for Linear Systems Problems, 2025

work page 2025
[26]

Quantum Simulation of Partial Differential Equations via Schr¨ odingerisation.Physical Review Letters, 133:230602, 2024

Shi Jin, Nana Liu, and Yue Yu. Quantum Simulation of Partial Differential Equations via Schr¨ odingerisation.Physical Review Letters, 133:230602, 2024

work page 2024
[27]

Kirby, and William J

Tyler Kharazi, Aaron Fitzpatrick, William M. Kirby, and William J. Mullin. Explicit Block Encodings of Boundary Value Problems for Many-Body Elliptic Operators.Quantum, 9:1764, 2025

work page 2025
[28]

Improved Quantum Algorithms for Linear and Nonlinear Differential Equations

Hari Krovi. Improved Quantum Algorithms for Linear and Nonlinear Differential Equations. Quantum, 7:913, 2023

work page 2023
[29]

A New Quantum Linear System Algorithm Beyond the Condition Number and Its Application to Solving Multivariate Polynomial Systems, 2025

Jianqiang Li. A New Quantum Linear System Algorithm Beyond the Condition Number and Its Application to Solving Multivariate Polynomial Systems, 2025

work page 2025
[30]

From linear differential equations to unitaries: A moment-matching dilation frame- work with near-optimal quantum algorithms, 2025

Xiantao Li. From linear differential equations to unitaries: A moment-matching dilation frame- work with near-optimal quantum algorithms, 2025

work page 2025
[31]

Guang Hao Low and Rolando D. Somma. Optimal Quantum Simulation of Linear Non-Unitary Dynamics, 2025

work page 2025
[32]

Quantum Algorithms and the Finite Element Method

Ashley Montanaro and Sam Pallister. Quantum Algorithms and the Finite Element Method. Physical Review A, 93:032324, 2016

work page 2016
[33]

On Solving Classes of Positive-Definite Quantum Linear Systems with Quadratically Improved Runtime in the Condition Number.Quantum, 5:573, 2021

Davide Orsucci and Vedran Dunjko. On Solving Classes of Positive-Definite Quantum Linear Systems with Quadratically Improved Runtime in the Condition Number.Quantum, 5:573, 2021

work page 2021
[34]

Quantum Multigrid Algorithm for Finite Element Problems, 2024

Osama Muhammad Raisuddin and Suvranu De. Quantum Multigrid Algorithm for Finite Element Problems, 2024

work page 2024
[35]

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 2 edition, 2003

Yousef Saad.Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Systems. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 2 edition, 2003

work page 2003
[36]

Somma, and Davide Orsucci

Yi˘ git Suba¸ sı, Rolando D. Somma, and Davide Orsucci. Quantum Algorithms for Systems of Linear Equations Inspired by Adiabatic Quantum Computing.Physical Review Letters, 122:060504, 2019. 22

work page 2019
[37]

Block-Encoding Structured Matrices for Data Input in Quantum Computing.Quantum, 8:1226, 2024

Christoph S¨ underhauf, Earl Campbell, and Joan Camps. Block-Encoding Structured Matrices for Data Input in Quantum Computing.Quantum, 8:1226, 2024

work page 2024
[38]

Fast Inversion, Preconditioned Quantum Linear System Solvers, Fast Green’s-Function Computation, and Fast Evaluation of Matrix Functions.Physical Review A, 104:032422, 2021

Yu Tong, Dong An, Nathan Wiebe, and Lin Lin. Fast Inversion, Preconditioned Quantum Linear System Solvers, Fast Green’s-Function Computation, and Fast Evaluation of Matrix Functions.Physical Review A, 104:032422, 2021

work page 2021
[39]

Varga.Matrix Iterative Analysis

Richard S. Varga.Matrix Iterative Analysis. Springer, Berlin, 2 edition, 2000. A Proof of the ODE stability Proof of Theorem 3.1.The residual block satisfies ˙w=M hw,w= r s , M h = 0−G † h Gh −I . We prove the stability estimate by a Lyapunov functional argument. Let Ah =G † hGh, K h :=A −1 h G† h, P h :=G hA−1 h G† h. The discrete Poincar´ e inequality g...

work page 2000

[1] [1]

Variable Time Amplitude Amplification and Quantum Algorithms for Linear Algebra Problems

Andris Ambainis. Variable Time Amplitude Amplification and Quantum Algorithms for Linear Algebra Problems. In29th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2012), volume 14 ofLeibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, pages 636–647, 2012

work page 2012

[2] [2]

Childs, and Lin Lin

Dong An, Andrew M. Childs, and Lin Lin. Quantum Algorithm for Linear Non-Unitary Dynamics with Near-Optimal Dependence on All Parameters, 2023

work page 2023

[3] [3]

Childs, Lin Lin, and Lexing Ying

Dong An, Andrew M. Childs, Lin Lin, and Lexing Ying. Laplace Transform Based Quantum Eigenvalue Transformation via Linear Combination of Hamiltonian Simulation, 2024

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Dong An and Lin Lin. Quantum Linear System Solver Based on Time-Optimal Adiabatic Quantum Computing and Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm.ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 3(2):5:1–5:28, 2022

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Linear Combination of Hamiltonian Simulation for Nonunitary Dynamics with Optimal State Preparation Cost.Physical Review Letters, 131:150603, 2023

Dong An, Jin-Peng Liu, and Lin Lin. Linear Combination of Hamiltonian Simulation for Nonunitary Dynamics with Optimal State Preparation Cost.Physical Review Letters, 131:150603, 2023. 20

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Berry, Andrew M

Dominic W. Berry, Andrew M. Childs, Aaron Ostrander, and Guoming Wang. Quantum Algo- rithm for Linear Differential Equations with Exponentially Improved Dependence on Precision. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 356(3):1057–1081, 2017

work page 2017

[7] [7]

Bramble, Joseph E

James H. Bramble, Joseph E. Pasciak, and Jinchao Xu. Parallel Multilevel Preconditioners. Mathematics of Computation, 55(191):1–22, 1990

work page 1990

[8] [8]

Brenner and L

Susanne C. Brenner and L. Ridgway Scott.The Mathematical Theory of Finite Element Methods, volume 15 ofTexts in Applied Mathematics. Springer, New York, 3 edition, 2008

work page 2008

[9] [9]

Convergence of the Mimetic Finite Difference Method for Diffusion Problems on Polyhedral Meshes.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 43(5):1872–1896, 2005

Franco Brezzi, Konstantin Lipnikov, and Mikhail Shashkov. Convergence of the Mimetic Finite Difference Method for Diffusion Problems on Polyhedral Meshes.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 43(5):1872–1896, 2005

work page 2005

[10] [10]

Explicit Quantum Circuits for Block Encodings of Certain Sparse Matrices.SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applica- tions, 45(1):801–827, 2024

Daan Camps, Lin Lin, Roel Van Beeumen, and Chao Yang. Explicit Quantum Circuits for Block Encodings of Certain Sparse Matrices.SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applica- tions, 45(1):801–827, 2024

work page 2024

[11] [11]

Quan- tum Algorithm and Circuit Design Solving the Poisson Equation.New Journal of Physics, 15:013021, 2013

Yudong Cao, Anargyros Papageorgiou, Iasonas Petras, Joseph Traub, and Sabre Kais. Quan- tum Algorithm and Circuit Design Solving the Poisson Equation.New Journal of Physics, 15:013021, 2013

work page 2013

[12] [12]

Childs, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D

Andrew M. Childs, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D. Somma. Quantum Algorithm for Systems of Linear Equations with Exponentially Improved Dependence on Precision.SIAM Journal on Computing, 46(6):1920–1950, 2017

work page 1920

[13] [13]

Childs, Jin-Peng Liu, and Aaron Ostrander

Andrew M. Childs, Jin-Peng Liu, and Aaron Ostrander. High-Precision Quantum Algorithms for Partial Differential Equations.Quantum, 5:574, 2021

work page 2021

[14] [14]

Ciarlet.The Finite Element Method for Elliptic Problems, volume 4 ofStudies in Mathematics and its Applications

Philippe G. Ciarlet.The Finite Element Method for Elliptic Problems, volume 4 ofStudies in Mathematics and its Applications. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1978

work page 1978

[15] [15]

David Clader, Bryan C

B. David Clader, Bryan C. Jacobs, and Chad R. Sprouse. Preconditioned Quantum Linear System Algorithm.Physical Review Letters, 110:250504, 2013

work page 2013

[16] [16]

Pedro C. S. Costa, Dong An, Yuval R. Sanders, Yuan Su, Ryan Babbush, and Dominic W. Berry. Optimal Scaling Quantum Linear-Systems Solver via Discrete Adiabatic Theorem.PRX Quantum, 3:040303, 2022

work page 2022

[17] [17]

Quantum Realization of the Finite Element Method, 2024

Matthias Deiml and Daniel Peterseim. Quantum Realization of the Finite Element Method, 2024

work page 2024

[18] [18]

Quantum Singular Value Transformation and Beyond: Exponential Improvements for Quantum Matrix Arithmetics

Andr´ as Gily´ en, Yuan Su, Guang Hao Low, and Nathan Wiebe. Quantum Singular Value Transformation and Beyond: Exponential Improvements for Quantum Matrix Arithmetics. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 193–204, 2019

work page 2019

[19] [19]

Golub and Charles F

Gene H. Golub and Charles F. Van Loan.Matrix Computations. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 4 edition, 2013

work page 2013

[20] [20]

Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd

Aram W. Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum Algorithm for Linear Systems of Equations.Physical Review Letters, 103:150502, 2009. 21

work page 2009

[21] [21]

Hyman, Mikhail Shashkov, and Stanly Steinberg

James M. Hyman, Mikhail Shashkov, and Stanly Steinberg. The Numerical Solution of Diffu- sion Problems in Strongly Heterogeneous Non-Isotropic Materials.Journal of Computational Physics, 132(1):130–148, 1997

work page 1997

[22] [22]

Lowrie, Sam Pallister, and Andrew T

David Jennings, Matteo Lostaglio, Robert B. Lowrie, Sam Pallister, and Andrew T. Sorn- borger. The Cost of Solving Linear Differential Equations on a Quantum Computer: Fast- Forwarding to Explicit Resource Counts.Quantum, 8:1553, 2024

work page 2024

[23] [23]

Sornborger, and Yi˘ git Suba¸ sı

David Jennings, Matteo Lostaglio, Sam Pallister, Andrew T. Sornborger, and Yi˘ git Suba¸ sı. Randomized Adiabatic Quantum Linear Solver Algorithm with Optimal Complexity Scaling and Detailed Running Costs.PRX Quantum, 6(4):040373, 2025

work page 2025

[24] [24]

Shi Jin and Nana Liu. Quantum Simulation of Discrete Linear Dynamical Systems and Simple Iterative Methods in Linear Algebra via Schr¨ odingerisation.Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 480(2291):20230370, 2024

work page 2024

[25] [25]

Quantum Preconditioning Method for Linear Systems Problems, 2025

Shi Jin, Nana Liu, Yue Ma, and Yue Yu. Quantum Preconditioning Method for Linear Systems Problems, 2025

work page 2025

[26] [26]

Quantum Simulation of Partial Differential Equations via Schr¨ odingerisation.Physical Review Letters, 133:230602, 2024

Shi Jin, Nana Liu, and Yue Yu. Quantum Simulation of Partial Differential Equations via Schr¨ odingerisation.Physical Review Letters, 133:230602, 2024

work page 2024

[27] [27]

Kirby, and William J

Tyler Kharazi, Aaron Fitzpatrick, William M. Kirby, and William J. Mullin. Explicit Block Encodings of Boundary Value Problems for Many-Body Elliptic Operators.Quantum, 9:1764, 2025

work page 2025

[28] [28]

Improved Quantum Algorithms for Linear and Nonlinear Differential Equations

Hari Krovi. Improved Quantum Algorithms for Linear and Nonlinear Differential Equations. Quantum, 7:913, 2023

work page 2023

[29] [29]

A New Quantum Linear System Algorithm Beyond the Condition Number and Its Application to Solving Multivariate Polynomial Systems, 2025

Jianqiang Li. A New Quantum Linear System Algorithm Beyond the Condition Number and Its Application to Solving Multivariate Polynomial Systems, 2025

work page 2025

[30] [30]

From linear differential equations to unitaries: A moment-matching dilation frame- work with near-optimal quantum algorithms, 2025

Xiantao Li. From linear differential equations to unitaries: A moment-matching dilation frame- work with near-optimal quantum algorithms, 2025

work page 2025

[31] [31]

Guang Hao Low and Rolando D. Somma. Optimal Quantum Simulation of Linear Non-Unitary Dynamics, 2025

work page 2025

[32] [32]

Quantum Algorithms and the Finite Element Method

Ashley Montanaro and Sam Pallister. Quantum Algorithms and the Finite Element Method. Physical Review A, 93:032324, 2016

work page 2016

[33] [33]

On Solving Classes of Positive-Definite Quantum Linear Systems with Quadratically Improved Runtime in the Condition Number.Quantum, 5:573, 2021

Davide Orsucci and Vedran Dunjko. On Solving Classes of Positive-Definite Quantum Linear Systems with Quadratically Improved Runtime in the Condition Number.Quantum, 5:573, 2021

work page 2021

[34] [34]

Quantum Multigrid Algorithm for Finite Element Problems, 2024

Osama Muhammad Raisuddin and Suvranu De. Quantum Multigrid Algorithm for Finite Element Problems, 2024

work page 2024

[35] [35]

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 2 edition, 2003

Yousef Saad.Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Systems. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 2 edition, 2003

work page 2003

[36] [36]

Somma, and Davide Orsucci

Yi˘ git Suba¸ sı, Rolando D. Somma, and Davide Orsucci. Quantum Algorithms for Systems of Linear Equations Inspired by Adiabatic Quantum Computing.Physical Review Letters, 122:060504, 2019. 22

work page 2019

[37] [37]

Block-Encoding Structured Matrices for Data Input in Quantum Computing.Quantum, 8:1226, 2024

Christoph S¨ underhauf, Earl Campbell, and Joan Camps. Block-Encoding Structured Matrices for Data Input in Quantum Computing.Quantum, 8:1226, 2024

work page 2024

[38] [38]

Fast Inversion, Preconditioned Quantum Linear System Solvers, Fast Green’s-Function Computation, and Fast Evaluation of Matrix Functions.Physical Review A, 104:032422, 2021

Yu Tong, Dong An, Nathan Wiebe, and Lin Lin. Fast Inversion, Preconditioned Quantum Linear System Solvers, Fast Green’s-Function Computation, and Fast Evaluation of Matrix Functions.Physical Review A, 104:032422, 2021

work page 2021

[39] [39]

Varga.Matrix Iterative Analysis

Richard S. Varga.Matrix Iterative Analysis. Springer, Berlin, 2 edition, 2000. A Proof of the ODE stability Proof of Theorem 3.1.The residual block satisfies ˙w=M hw,w= r s , M h = 0−G † h Gh −I . We prove the stability estimate by a Lyapunov functional argument. Let Ah =G † hGh, K h :=A −1 h G† h, P h :=G hA−1 h G† h. The discrete Poincar´ e inequality g...

work page 2000