Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Solving the Nonlinear Vlasov Equation on a Quantum Computer

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Quantum Vlasov algorithm needs impossible velocity grids

desk verdict Careful, honest negative result for Carleman QLSAs on nonlinear Vlasov, with a load-bearing R<1 caveat that the authors themselves flag. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19310 v2 pith:HF6AV24S submitted 2024-11-28 quant-ph physics.plasm-ph

Tamás Vaszary , Animesh Datta , Tom Goffrey , Brian Appelbe This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.plasm-ph PACS 52.65.-y03.67.Ac
keywords VlasovequationCarlemanlinearizationquantumlinearsystemsalgorithmnonlineardifferentialequationsplasmasimulationconvergencecriteriacomputationalcomplexity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether a recently proposed quantum algorithm—one that linearizes quadratic nonlinearities by Carleman embedding and solves the resulting linear system with a quantum linear solver—can simulate the nonlinear Vlasov equation on a grid. The authors map the electrostatic Vlasov equation with a Krook-type collision operator, in one space and one velocity dimension, into the exact input format the algorithm requires, and then evaluate the algorithm's own convergence and complexity criteria. They find that the algorithm's convergence parameter R can be below 1 only if the velocity grid has at most a fraction of a point for typical interstellar or inertial-confinement-fusion parameters, i.e., no physically meaningful grid satisfies the requirement. They also find that query and gate complexity upper bounds are polynomially worse than the classical finite-difference time complexity for the same scheme. The conclusion a sympathetic reader would draw is that, for this Carleman-linearization-based quantum approach, the nonlinear Vlasov equation is not a practical target.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a chain: a finite-difference discretization on an $N_x \times N_v$ grid; a row-major vectorization $u = \mathrm{vec}(f)$; explicit matrices $F^{(2)}$ (quadratic, built from a trapezoidal-rule integration vector and a finite-difference velocity derivative stencil), $F^{(1)}$ (linear advection, background term, and diagonal Krook collision with log-norm $\mu(F^{(1)}) \le -\nu_0$), and $F^{(0)}$ (Maxwellian source); the Carleman linearization that embeds the quadratic ODE into a block-tridiagonal linear system $\frac{dz}{dt} = A z + b$ truncated at level $N_C$; and the convergence parameter $R$ of Eq. (16) together with the log-norm dissipativity condition $\mu(F^{(1)}) < 0$. The argument's force comes from computing the asymptotic scaling of $\|F^{(2)}\|$, $\|F^{(0)}\|$, and $\|u_{\mathrm{in}}\|$ and inserting them into $R$, producing the $N_v^{3/2}/\nu_0$ scaling and the resulting physical grid-size restrictions.

What would settle it

Solve the Carleman-truncated system for the two-beam Vlasov–Gauss equations on a small but physical grid, e.g., N_v = 64, with warm interstellar medium parameters (T = 8000 K, x_max = 1000 km) and a physical collision frequency, so that R is orders of magnitude above 1; if the truncation error still decreases exponentially with N_C, the paper's central restriction fails. Alternatively, implement the QLSA on this small grid and compare the actual gate count against the classical solver, since the complexity bounds in Eqs. (71-72) are upper bounds and a concrete implementation could show whether the polynomial gap is realized.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that when the discretized Vlasov–Gauss system is brought to the form $\frac{du}{dt} = F^{(2)} u^{\otimes 2} + F^{(1)} u + F^{(0)}$ and fed into the Carleman-linearization quantum ODE solver, the convergence criterion $R < 1$ (Eq. 16) becomes the binding constraint. With a two-beam initial condition and a physical Coulomb collision frequency, the asymptotic convergence parameter is $R = O(N_v^{3/2}/\nu_0)$ (Eq. 60). Requiring $R < 1$ and inserting typical warm interstellar medium parameters gives $N_v \lesssim 1.6 \times 10^{-9}$, and inertial confinement fusion parameters give $N_v \lesssim 2.24 \times 10^{-5}$; conversely, a modest grid $N_v \ge 100$ forces $x_{\max} T \lesssim 5.31 \times 10^{-7}\,\mathrm{m\,K}$. The query and gate complexity bounds (Eqs. 71–72) are polynomially larger than the classical time complexity $O(T^2/\varepsilon_c)$ of the same finite-difference scheme. Coupling to Ampere's law instead of Gauss's law is shown to be worse: the field variables never enter the linear part of the evolution, so the log-norm of $F^{(1)}$ cannot be negative, violating the dissipativity condition outright.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the convergence criterion R<1 is necessary for useful accuracy: the paper's grid restriction comes from imposing Eq. (16), and if Carleman linearization still converges for R much larger than 1—as numerical experiments on a toy model suggest—the severe grid restriction would be substantially relaxed; a secondary premise is that the two-beam initial condition is representative, with the authors arguing other initial conditions only increase R.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a Carleman-linearization quantum linear solver of the type analyzed here, the nonlinear Vlasov equation is not a practical quantum computing target: the convergence condition cannot be met with physically reasonable grids.
  • Even in the parameter regime where the quantum algorithm converges, its query and gate complexity upper bounds are polynomially larger than the classical time complexity, so no asymptotic quantum speedup is obtained from this route.
  • Coupling the Vlasov equation to Ampere's law instead of Gauss's law makes the linear part non-dissipative ($\mu(F^{(1)}) \ge 0$), so the Carleman-linearization algorithm cannot converge at all in that formulation.
  • The restriction acts like a CFL-type condition $R<1$ connecting the velocity grid size $N_v$, temperature $T$, and box size $x_{\max}$: any practical grid requires either unphysically large collision rates or unphysically cold and small systems.
  • A relaxed convergence condition, as suggested by numerical evidence in a toy model, would substantially ease these restrictions; the paper explicitly anticipates that such a relaxation could carry over to the Vlasov equation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the explicit $F$ matrices and their sparsity and norm scalings are derived independently of the specific quantum linear solver, the mapping itself is reusable: a future quantum nonlinear solver with milder convergence requirements or better dimension and sparsity scaling could inherit the mapping without modification.
  • The $R<1$ criterion used here is known from numerical experiments on a toy system (Burger's equation) to be conservative; if that finding carries over to Vlasov, the strict grid restriction is a property of the error-analysis bound rather than of Carleman linearization itself, and the practicality conclusion would need revisiting.
  • A direct test would be to run the truncated Carleman system classically for a small Vlasov grid with $R>1$ and check whether the truncation error decays exponentially in $N_C$; such a result would decouple the Carleman embedding from the QLSA convergence analysis.
  • The analysis assumes a single-species electron plasma in one dimension; the 3+3 dimensional Vlasov–Maxwell system, with magnetic fields and an explicitly evolved field, has a different linear structure, so the dissipativity failure found for Ampere's law may not persist.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper maps the one-dimensional electrostatic Vlasov equation with a Krook collision operator, discretized on an Nx×Nv grid, onto the Carleman-linearization-based quantum ODE solver of Krovi. It constructs the explicit matrices F^(2), F^(1), F^(0), derives bounds for the convergence parameter R, the Carleman truncation level N_C, the norm of the linearized evolution matrix, and the resulting query and gate complexities. It concludes that the convergence criterion R<1 forces a collision frequency ν0≥O(Nv^{3/2}), which leads to physically unrealistic restrictions on the velocity-grid size for warm interstellar and inertial-confinement-fusion parameters, and that the quantum algorithm's complexity is polynomially worse than the classical finite-difference solver. It also argues that coupling via Ampère's law makes dissipativity impossible because the electric-field block of F^(1) has zero columns.

Significance. If the conclusions were fully established, the paper would provide a valuable negative case study for quantum simulation of nonlinear kinetic plasma physics: it would show that current Carleman-QLSA methods, when applied to the Vlasov-Poisson system, require unphysically strong dissipation and do not offer an asymptotic speedup. The explicit construction of the F matrices, the norm estimates in Appendix C, and the block-structure analysis of F^(2) are substantive and reusable. The Ampère-law obstruction (zero columns in F^(1) leading to α(F^(1))≥0) is a clean structural argument. However, the paper's central negative conclusions rest on treating the R<1 condition of Eq. (16) as the operative convergence criterion, while Section 9 itself states that this condition is not strict and cites a numerical example with R≈44 that still converges. Because R<1 is a sufficient condition in Krovi's theorem, not a necessary one, both the severe-grid-restriction claim and the polynomial-slowdown claim are not as robust as the abstract and conclusion suggest.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.3, §7, §9, Eq. (16)] The paper's two headline conclusions—the unphysical grid restrictions of Eqs. (62–64) and the polynomial slowdown of Eq. (73) versus Eq. (74)—are derived by treating R<1 from Eq. (16) as a binding constraint. This yields ν0≥O(Nv^{3/2}) in Eq. (60), which is then substituted into the complexity analysis in Section 7 and Appendix D.7. However, Section 9 explicitly acknowledges that the R<1 requirement is not strict in practice, citing Ref. [34], where Carleman linearization of Burgers' equation converges with R≈44, and anticipates that the same holds for Vlasov. Since R<1 is a sufficient condition in Krovi's theorem rather than a necessary one, the constraint ν0≥O(Nv^{3/2}) is not proven to be required for actual convergence. For example, with ν0~Nv the discriminant condition of Eq. (20) can still be satisfied, N_C becomes logarithmic, and the asymptotic slowdown of Eq. (73) need not follow. The authors should either provide evidence—analytical or numerical for the Vlasov system specifically—that R<1 is necessary, or substantially weaken the abstract and concluding claims so that they are explicitly conditional on the proven sufficient criterion.
  2. [Eq. (116) and Appendix D.2] There is an inconsistency in the asymptotic norm of the two-beam initial condition. Eq. (115) gives ∥uin∥=N√Nx/(√2 xmax Δv); using Δv=2vmax/(Nv−1) this scales as O(Nv√Nx), not as O(√(NxNv)) as stated in Eq. (116). This is not merely typographical: Appendix D.2 uses Eq. (116) to obtain gu=O(Nv^{1/2}), whereas with the printed O(√(NxNv)) the ratio gu would be O(1), and the subsequent estimates of N_C and ∥A∥ in Appendices D.3–D.4 would differ. Please correct Eq. (116) and trace all downstream uses of this scaling.
  3. [Section 9 and Abstract] The abstract and conclusion state flatly that the convergence criteria place severe restrictions on applications and that the quantum algorithm is polynomially less efficient. Section 9 says the opposite in a qualified way, namely that the R<1 restriction is not strict and that the plasma-parameter restrictions could be relaxed. This is a substantive tension rather than a presentation issue: a reader cannot tell whether the paper's intended contribution is a rigorous bound under Krovi's sufficient condition or a general statement about the infeasibility of Carleman-QLSA for Vlasov. Please make the conditional nature of the negative result explicit in the abstract and in Section 10, and clearly separate the rigorously proven statements from the anticipated ones.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Notation, Eqs. (8) and (12)] The symbol N is used for two different quantities: the total number of grid points NxNv in Eq. (8) and the number of electrons per unit area in Eq. (12) and later in Eq. (115). This ambiguity is confusing in Appendix C; please introduce a distinct symbol, e.g., Np for the particle number.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The caption of Figure 3 contains a run-on sentence and a typographical issue in the sentence beginning 'The small cells are row vectors with length N=12'; please rewrite the caption so that the block structure and the meaning of the colored cells are self-contained.
  3. [Appendix D.3] The derivation of N_C in Eq. (122) relies on a Taylor expansion of log(1/∥u¯in∥) with respect to second-order corrections. The presentation would be clearer if the precise small parameter and the order at which terms are discarded were stated explicitly before Eq. (121).
  4. [Section 7 and Eq. (45)] The bound ∥A∥≤NC(δ)(∥F^(0)∥+∥F^(1)∥+∥F^(2)∥) in Eq. (45) is quite loose, and the subsequent complexity expressions inherit this looseness. Please state explicitly that all complexity claims are upper bounds based on this worst-case bound, rather than tight estimates.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Vlasov-to-Carleman mapping, norm estimates, R bound, and complexity comparisons are derived from first principles; the only self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper maps the discretized Vlasov equation (Eqs. 11a-11d) procedurally onto the quadratic ODE form Eq. (14), computes the exact and asymptotic norms of F(2), F(0), u_in and the log-norm of F(1) analytically in Appendix C, and inserts these into Krovi's externally stated convergence parameter R (Eq. 16). The resulting bound R = O(N_v^{3/2}/nu_0) in Eq. (60) is an algebraic consequence of those definitions, not a fitted quantity: no parameter is adjusted to force the N_v < 1 conclusions in Eqs. (63)-(64). The complexity bounds Eqs. (71)-(73) follow from the same computed norms, sparsity s = O(N), and the N_C scaling in Eq. (122); the classical complexity Eq. (74) is derived independently in Appendix E, so the claimed polynomial slowdown is a comparison of two derived bounds, not a reduction of output to input. The only self-citations are Ref. [50], a dissertation containing preliminary mapping steps that this paper re-derives in full, and Ref. [49], a forward-looking remark about future PDE Carleman work; neither is load-bearing for the central claim. The Section 9 concession that the R < 1 requirement 'is not strict in practice', citing Ref. [34] with R about 44, is an honest caveat about the sufficiency rather than necessity of an external convergence condition; it weakens the practical conclusions but does not make the derivation circular. No fitted-input-called-prediction, ansatz-smuggling, uniqueness-import, or renaming patterns are present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on Krovi's quantum algorithm as a black box (its convergence criteria and complexity theorems), on the choice of Krook-type collisions as the only dissipation mechanism, and on the specific two-beam initial condition chosen to simplify the R analysis. No free parameters are fitted; physical parameters (T, xmax, n_bar) are taken from typical plasma conditions. The vmax = 10 vp simulation box choice affects constants but not scaling.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Krovi's quantum algorithm for quadratic ODEs has query complexity as in Eq. (42) and converges when mu(F(1)) < 0 and R < 1 (Ref [31], Theorems 6-8).
    The paper imports the algorithm and its convergence criteria wholesale from [31]; it does not prove them.
  • domain assumption Carleman linearization truncation error bound: choosing NC per Eq. (34) bounds the truncation error by delta (Ref [31, Lemma 17]).
    This bound is taken from the literature and used to set NC and to derive the final complexity.
  • domain assumption The finite difference discretization (central differences plus trapezoidal rule) of the Vlasov-Gauss system yields a quadratic ODE system of the form Eq. (14).
    This is the paper's own construction; the assumption is that this discretization captures the relevant dynamics and that the mapping is valid.
  • domain assumption The two-beam initial condition (Eq. 59) is representative of a physical scenario and makes the inhomogeneous term asymptotically negligible in R; for more general initial conditions, R is at least as large.
    The paper chooses this to make ||F0||/||uin|| vanish asymptotically (Section 5.2), which is required to control R with nu0.
  • standard math The classical time complexity for the same finite difference scheme is O(T^2/epsilon_c) (Appendix E), and the stability condition h = O(Delta x^q + Delta v^q) holds.
    Standard numerical analysis; derived in the paper but relies on textbook assumptions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Solving the Nonlinear Vlasov Equation on a Quantum Computer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HF6AV24S

@misc{pith2026241119310,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Solving the Nonlinear Vlasov Equation on a Quantum Computer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HF6AV24S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19310}
}
read the original abstract

We present a mapping of the nonlinear, electrostatic Vlasov equation with Krook-type collision operators, discretized on a (1+1) dimensional grid, onto a recent Carleman linearization-based quantum algorithm for solving ordinary differential equations (ODEs) with quadratic nonlinearities. We derive upper bounds for the query- and gate complexities of the quantum algorithm in the limit of large grid sizes. We conclude that these are polynomially larger than the time complexity of the corresponding classical algorithms. We find that this is mostly due to the dimension, sparsity and norm of the Carleman linearized evolution matrix. We show that the convergence criteria of the quantum algorithm places severe restrictions on potential applications. This is due to the high level of dissipation required for convergence, that far exceeds the physical dissipation effect provided by the Krook operator for typical plasma physics applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19310 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A schema of the procedure used in this paper. Steps 7 and 8 are the uniquely quantum ones. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the F (1) matrix for a (4, 4) grid. (a): with Gauss’s law; (b): with Ampere’s law; (c): color codes for elements. On the left of (a) and (b), the evolved vector u is written out explicitly, meanwhile on top, u represents how the matrix multiplication mixes its elements. All gray elements are zero. Cells with the same colors have generally different numerical values. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the Gauss’s law version of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Improved Convergence of Carleman-Embedded Quantum Algorithm for the Vlasov-Poisson System

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Shifting the Vlasov–Poisson distribution by a Maxwellian and minimizing over Lyapunov matrices extends Carleman embedding convergence to physically allowed collision frequencies for Landau-damping-type initial data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [34]

    Krovi, Nuno F

    Jin-Peng Liu, Herman Øie Kolden, Hari K. Krovi, Nuno F. Loureiro, Konstantina Trivisa, and Andrew M. Childs. Efficient quantum algorithm for dissipative nonlin- ear differential equations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(35): e2026805118, 2021. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2026805118

    doi:10.1073/pnas.2026805118 2021

  2. [1]

    Alekseenko and Craig Euler

    A. Alekseenko and Craig Euler. A Bhatnagar–Gross–Krook kinetic model with velocity-dependent collision frequency and corrected relaxation of moments. Con- tinuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics, 01 2013. DOI: 10.1007/s00161-014-0407-0. 25

    work page doi:10.1007/s00161-014-0407-0 2013

  3. [2]

    Quantum algorithm for the linear Vlasov equation with collisions.Phys

    AbtinAmeri, ErikaYe, PaolaCappellaro, HariKrovi, andNunoF.Loureiro. Quantum algorithm for the linear Vlasov equation with collisions.Phys. Rev. A, 107:062412, Jun 2023. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.107.062412

    doi:10.1103/physreva.107.062412 2023

  4. [3]

    A theory of quan- tum differential equation solvers: limitations and fast-forwarding

    Dong An, Jin-Peng Liu, Daochen Wang, and Qi Zhao. A theory of quan- tum differential equation solvers: limitations and fast-forwarding. 2023. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2211.05246

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.05246 2023

  5. [4]

    Annual Research Briefs 2019

    Investigation of quantum algorithms for direct numerical simulation of the Navier-Stokes equations , 12 2019. Annual Research Briefs 2019. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22657.81762

    work page arXiv 2019

  6. [5]

    Arber and R.G.L

    T.D. Arber and R.G.L. Vann. A critical comparison of eulerian-grid-based vlasov solvers. Journal of Computational Physics, 180(1):339–357, 2002. ISSN 0021-9991. DOI: 10.1006/jcph.2002.7098

    arXiv 2002

  7. [6]

    Quantum and classical algorithms for nonlinear unitary dynamics

    Noah Brustle and Nathan Wiebe. Quantum and classical algorithms for nonlinear unitary dynamics. Quantum, 9:1741, May 2025. ISSN 2521-327X. DOI: 10.22331/q- 2025-05-13-1741

    doi:10.22331/q- 2025

  8. [7]

    Application de la théorie des équations intégrales linéaires aux systèmes d’équations différentielles non linéaires

    Torsten Carleman. Application de la théorie des équations intégrales linéaires aux systèmes d’équations différentielles non linéaires. Acta Mathematica, 59(none):63 – 87, 1932. DOI: 10.1007/BF02546499

    doi:10.1007/bf02546499 1932

Show all 67 references
  1. [8]

    Chankin, D.P

    A.V. Chankin, D.P. Coster, and G. Meisl. Development and Benchmarking of a New Kinetic Code for Plasma Periphery (KIPP).Contributions to Plasma Physics, 52(5-6): 500–504, 2012. DOI: 10.1002/ctpp.201210039

    2012 doi

  2. [9]

    Introduction to plasma physics and controlled fusion, volume 1

    Francis F Chen. Introduction to plasma physics and controlled fusion, volume 1. Springer, 2016. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-22309-4. Third Edition

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    John M. Dawson. Particle simulation of plasmas.Rev. Mod. Phys., 55:403–447, Apr

  4. [12]

    An Efficient Decomposition of the Carleman Linearized Burgers’ Equation

    Reuben Demirdjian, Thomas Hogancamp, and Daniel Gunlycke. An Efficient Decomposition of the Carleman Linearized Burgers’ Equation. 2025. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.00285

    2025 doi

  5. [13]

    I. Y. Dodin and E. A. Startsev. On applications of quantum computing to plasma simulations. Physics of Plasmas, 28(9):092101, 09 2021. ISSN 1070-664X. DOI: 10.1063/5.0056974

    2021 doi

  6. [15]

    Alexander Engel, Graeme Smith, and Scott E. Parker. Linear embedding of nonlin- ear dynamical systems and prospects for efficient quantum algorithms. Physics of Plasmas, 28(6):062305, 06 2021. ISSN 1070-664X. DOI: 10.1063/5.0040313

    2021 doi

  7. [16]

    Modeling extragalactic jets

    Attilio Ferrari. Modeling extragalactic jets. Annual Review of Astronomy and As- trophysics, 36(Volume 36, 1998):539–598, 1998. ISSN 1545-4282. DOI: 10.1146/an- nurev.astro.36.1.539

    1998 doi

  8. [17]

    Ferrière

    Katia M. Ferrière. The interstellar environment of our galaxy.Rev. Mod. Phys., 73: 1031–1066, Dec 2001. DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.73.1031

    2001 doi

  9. [18]

    Explicit Error Bounds for Carleman Linearization

    Marcelo Forets and Amaury Pouly. Explicit Error Bounds for Carleman Linearization

  10. [19]

    Finding flows of a Navier–Stokes fluid through quantum computing

    Frank Gaitan. Finding flows of a Navier–Stokes fluid through quantum computing. npj Quantum Information, 6(1):61, 2020. DOI: 10.1038/s41534-020-00291-0. 26

    2020 doi

  11. [20]

    Frank Gaitan. Finding Solutions of the Navier-Stokes Equations through Quantum Computing—Recent Progress, a Generalization, and Next Steps Forward.Advanced Quantum Technologies, 4(10):2100055, 2021. DOI: 10.1002/qute.202100055

    2021 doi

  12. [21]

    Embedding classical dynamics in a quantum computer.Phys

    Dimitrios Giannakis, Abbas Ourmazd, Philipp Pfeffer, Jörg Schumacher, and Joanna Slawinska. Embedding classical dynamics in a quantum computer.Phys. Rev. A, 105: 052404, May 2022. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.105.052404

    2022 doi

  13. [22]

    Variational quantum frame- work for nonlinear pde constrained optimization using carleman linearization

    Abeynaya Gnanasekaran, Amit Surana, and Hongyu Zhu. Variational quantum frame- work for nonlinear pde constrained optimization using carleman linearization. 2024. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.13688

    2024 doi arXiv

  14. [23]

    Bharadwaj, and Mikel Sanz

    Javier Gonzalez-Conde, Dylan Lewis, Sachin S. Bharadwaj, and Mikel Sanz. Quan- tum Carleman linearisation efficiency in nonlinear fluid dynamics. 2024. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.23057

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [24]

    Lov K. Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. InProceed- ings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’96, page 212–219, New York, NY, USA, 1996. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 0897917855. DOI: 10.1145/237814.237866

    1996

  16. [25]

    Hauck, Christian Klingenberg, Marlies Pirner, and Sandra War- necke

    Jeffrey Haack, C. Hauck, Christian Klingenberg, Marlies Pirner, and Sandra War- necke. A consistent BGK model with velocity-dependent collision frequency for gas mixtures. Journal of Statistical Physics, 184, 09 2021. DOI: 10.1007/s10955-021- 02821-2

    2021 doi

  17. [26]

    Horn and Charles R

    Roger A. Horn and Charles R. Johnson.Matrix Analysis. Cambridge University Press,

  18. [27]

    Analysis of Carleman Linearization of Lattice Boltzmann

    Wael Itani and Sauro Succi. Analysis of Carleman Linearization of Lattice Boltzmann. Fluids, 7(1), 2022. ISSN 2311-5521. DOI: 10.3390/fluids7010024

    2022 doi

  19. [28]

    QuantumAlgorithmforLattice Boltzmann (QALB) Simulation of Incompressible Fluids with a Nonlinear Collision Term

    WaelItani, KatepalliR.Sreenivasan, andSauroSucci. QuantumAlgorithmforLattice Boltzmann (QALB) Simulation of Incompressible Fluids with a Nonlinear Collision Term. 2023. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.05915

    2023 doi arXiv

  20. [29]

    Joseph, Y

    I. Joseph, Y. Shi, M. D. Porter, A. R. Castelli, V. I. Geyko, F. R. Graziani, S. B. Libby, and J. L. DuBois. Quantum computing for fusion energy science applications. Physics of Plasmas, 30(1):010501, 01 2023. ISSN 1070-664X. DOI: 10.1063/5.0123765

    2023 doi

  21. [30]

    Koopman–von Neumann approach to quantum simulation of nonlinear classical dynamics

    Ilon Joseph. Koopman–von Neumann approach to quantum simulation of nonlinear classical dynamics. Phys. Rev. Res., 2:043102, Oct 2020. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevRe- search.2.043102

    2020 doi

  22. [31]

    Improved quantum algorithms for linear and nonlinear differential equa- tions

    Hari Krovi. Improved quantum algorithms for linear and nonlinear differential equa- tions. Quantum, 7:913, 2023. DOI: 10.22331/q-2023-02-02-913

    2023 doi

  23. [32]

    A quantum algorithm to solve nonlinear differential equations

    Sarah K Leyton and Tobias J Osborne. A quantum algorithm to solve nonlinear differential equations. 2008. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.0812.4423

    2008 doi arXiv

  24. [33]

    Schenter, Mar- garet S

    Xiangyu Li, Xiaolong Yin, Nathan Wiebe, Jaehun Chun, Gregory K. Schenter, Mar- garet S. Cheung, and Johannes Mülmenstädt. Potential quantum advantage for sim- ulation of fluid dynamics. 2024. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.16550

    2024 doi arXiv

  25. [35]

    Efficient quantum algorithm for nonlinear reaction–diffusion equations and energy estimation

    Jin-Peng Liu, Dong An, Di Fang, Jiasu Wang, Guang Hao Low, and Stephen Jordan. Efficient quantum algorithm for nonlinear reaction–diffusion equations and energy estimation. Quantum, 5:502, July 2023. ISSN 2521-327X. DOI: 10.1007/s00220-023- 04857-9. 27

    2023 doi

  26. [36]

    Quantum algorithm for nonlinear differential equations

    Seth Lloyd, Giacomo De Palma, Can Gokler, Bobak Kiani, Zi-Wen Liu, Milad Mar- vian, Felix Tennie, and Tim Palmer. Quantum algorithm for nonlinear differential equations. 2020. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2011.06571

    2020 doi arXiv

  27. [37]

    Quantum algorithm for the Vlasov simulation of the large-scale struc- ture formation with massive neutrinos.Phys

    Koichi Miyamoto, Soichiro Yamazaki, Fumio Uchida, Kotaro Fujisawa, and Naoki Yoshida. Quantum algorithm for the Vlasov simulation of the large-scale struc- ture formation with massive neutrinos.Phys. Rev. Res., 6:013200, Feb 2024. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.013200

    2024 doi

  28. [39]

    Dodin, and Edward A

    Ivan Novikau, Ilya Y. Dodin, and Edward A. Startsev. Encoding of linear ki- netic plasma problems in quantum circuits via data compression. 2024. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.11989

    2024 doi arXiv

  29. [40]

    CRC Press, 1 edition,

    George K Parks.Physics Of Space Plasmas: An Introduction. CRC Press, 1 edition,

  30. [41]

    Johnson, Collin Farquhar, Yudong Cao, and Michael C

    John Penuel, Amara Katabarwa, Peter D. Johnson, Collin Farquhar, Yudong Cao, and Michael C. Garrett. Feasibility of accelerating incompressible computational fluid dynamics simulations with fault-tolerant quantum computers. 2024. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.06323

    2024 doi

  31. [42]

    Press, Saul A

    William H. Press, Saul A. Teukolsky, William T. Vetterling, and Brian P. Flan- nery. Numerical Recipes 3rd Edition: The Art of Scientific Computing . Cam- bridge University Press, USA, 3 edition, 2007. ISBN 0521880688. URL https: //dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1403886

    2007 doi

  32. [43]

    Rosenbluth, William M

    Marshall N. Rosenbluth, William M. MacDonald, and David L. Judd. Fokker- Planck equation for an inverse-square force. Phys. Rev., 107:1–6, Jul 1957. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.107.1

    1957 doi

  33. [44]

    Lattice boltzmann–carleman quantum algorithm and circuit for fluid flows at moderate reynolds number.AVS Quantum Science, 6(2): 023802, 04 2024

    Claudio Sanavio and Sauro Succi. Lattice boltzmann–carleman quantum algorithm and circuit for fluid flows at moderate reynolds number.AVS Quantum Science, 6(2): 023802, 04 2024. ISSN 2639-0213. DOI: 10.1116/5.0195549

    2024 doi

  34. [45]

    Peter W. Shor. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete loga- rithms on a quantum computer.SIAM Journal on Computing, 26(5):1484–1509, 1997. DOI: 10.1137/S0097539795293172

    1997 doi

  35. [46]

    Sircombe and T.D

    N.J. Sircombe and T.D. Arber. VALIS: A split-conservative scheme for the relativistic 2D Vlasov–Maxwell system. Journal of Computational Physics, 228(13):4773–4788,

  36. [47]

    The BGK-model with velocity-dependent collision fre- quency

    Henning Struchtrup. The BGK-model with velocity-dependent collision fre- quency. Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics, 9:23–31, 02 1997. DOI: 10.1007/s001610050053

    1997 doi

  37. [48]

    An efficient quan- tum algorithm for simulating polynomial differential equations

    Amit Surana, Abeynaya Gnanasekaran, and Tuhin Sahai. An efficient quan- tum algorithm for simulating polynomial differential equations. 2023. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2212.10775

    2023 doi arXiv

  38. [49]

    Carleman Linearization of Partial Differential Equations

    Tamás Vaszary. Carleman Linearization of Partial Differential Equations. 2024. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.00014

    2024 doi arXiv

  39. [50]

    Solving the Nonlinear Vlasov Equation on a Quantum Computer (Dissertation), May 2024

    Tamás Vaszary. Solving the Nonlinear Vlasov Equation on a Quantum Computer (Dissertation), May 2024. URLhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11200239

    2024 doi

  40. [51]

    Quantum linear system algo- rithm for dense matrices.Phys

    Leonard Wossnig, Zhikuan Zhao, and Anupam Prakash. Quantum linear system algo- rithm for dense matrices.Phys. Rev. Lett., 120:050502, Jan 2018. DOI: 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.120.050502. 28

    2018 doi

  41. [52]

    Quantum Algorithms for Nonlinear Dynamics: Revisiting Carleman Linearization with No Dissipative Conditions

    Hsuan-Cheng Wu, Jingyao Wang, and Xiantao Li. Quantum Algorithms for Nonlinear Dynamics: Revisiting Carleman Linearization with No Dissipative Conditions. 2024. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.12714

    2024 doi arXiv

  42. [53]

    Quantum homotopy perturbation method for nonlinear dissipative ordinary differential equations

    Cheng Xue, Yu-Chun Wu, and Guo-Ping Guo. Quantum homotopy perturbation method for nonlinear dissipative ordinary differential equations. New Journal of Physics, 23(12):123035, dec 2021. DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/ac3eff

    2021 doi

  43. [54]

    Loureiro, and Fab- rice Debbasch

    Julien Zylberman, Giuseppe Di Molfetta, Marc Brachet, Nuno F. Loureiro, and Fab- rice Debbasch. Quantum simulations of hydrodynamics via the Madelung transfor- mation. Phys. Rev. A, 106:032408, Sep 2022. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.106.032408

    2022 doi

  44. [55]

    Loureiro, and Fab- rice Debbasch

    Julien Zylberman, Giuseppe Di Molfetta, Marc Brachet, Nuno F. Loureiro, and Fab- rice Debbasch. Hybrid quantum-classical algorithm for hydrodynamics. 2022. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2202.00918

    2022 doi arXiv

  45. [56]

    A living review of quantum computing for plasma physics

    Óscar Amaro and Diogo Cruz. A living review of quantum computing for plasma physics. 2023. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.00001. 29 A Mathematical definitions A.1 Norm definitions The lk, and in particular thel2 norm of vector av with lengthN is ∥v∥k≡ ( N∑ n=1 |vn|k )1/k , ∥v∥≡∥ v∥2...

    2023 doi arXiv

  46. [62]

    TransposeofaKroneckerproductistheKroneckerproductofthetransposes: (A⊗B)T = AT⊗BT

  47. [63]

    The eigenvalues of the tensor productA⊗B are products of eigenvaluesλiωj ifλi is an eigenvalue ofA and ωj is that ofB

  48. [64]

    The only non-zero eigenvalue of the outer productvv T of the column vectorv with itself is the inner productλ =vTv =∥v∥2

  49. [65]

    The eigenvalues ofF (A) are F (λi) if F (x) has a Taylor expansion nearx = 0

  50. [66]

    The eigenvalues of the(n,n ) sized tridiagonal Toeplitz matrix   α β 0 ··· 0 γ α β ··· 0 0 γ α ··· ... ... ... ... ... β 0 0 ··· γ α   (90) are λk =α + 2β √γ β cos ( kπ n + 1 ) , k = 1,...,n. (91) A.5 Discrete calculus The finite difference schemes operate wi...

  51. [67]

    Case{n < Nv + 1} evolvesfij with i = 1, when the integral of the ion background is 0 by definition

  52. [68]

    Case{⌈n/Nv⌉≥ 2 and n Nv = 1} evolvesfij with i≥ 2 and j = 1, where the left ‘leg’ of∂/∂v|ijf vanishes due to BCs

  53. [69]

    Case{⌈n/Nv⌉≥ 2 and n Nv =Nv} evolvesfij with i≥ 2 and j =Nv, where the right ‘leg’ of∂/∂v|ijf vanishes due to BCs

  54. [70]

    The last case is the general one, in which both ‘legs’ exist. [ F (2) ] n,k = 9q2∆x 4meε0 ·    { 0, for n<N v + 1,    Nv∑ J=1 ( δk,Nn+J +δk,Nn+(⌈n/Nv⌉−1)Nv+J ) +2 ...

  55. [1983]

    DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.55.403

    doi

  56. [1985]

    DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511810817

    doi

  57. [1995]

    DOI: 10.1201/9780429301674

    doi

  58. [2009]

    DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2009.03.029

    ISSN 0021-9991. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2009.03.029

    2009 doi

  59. [2017]

    DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1711.02552

    doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.