pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00794 · v2 · pith:CHFJUN3Fnew · submitted 2026-05-01 · 🪐 quant-ph

Quantum Simulation of Differential-Algebraic Equations with Applications to Unsteady Stokes Flow

Hsuan-Cheng Wu , Xiantao Li This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 23:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum algorithmsdifferential-algebraic equationsStokes flowZeno dynamicsquantum simulationconstrained systemsHamiltonian simulationblock encoding
0
0 comments X

The pith

Dilation framework embeds non-Hermitian DAE dynamics into projected quantum evolution on an enlarged space.

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

This paper introduces a dilation framework for quantum simulation of linear differential-algebraic equations. The method lifts the constrained system into a larger Hilbert space where the evolution becomes a projected Schrödinger equation, which is equivalent to a quantum Zeno dynamics. Applied to structure-preserving discretizations of the unsteady Stokes equations, the approach uses a Gaussian moment dilation to implement the dynamics as a superposition of unitary evolutions. This yields a simulation cost of order h to the minus two times square root of t in the sparse access model, up to postselection. Sympathetic readers would care because many physical models involve algebraic constraints that standard quantum ODE simulators cannot directly handle.

Core claim

The authors claim that by embedding the generally non-Hermitian constrained evolution of DAEs into a projected Schrödinger-type dynamics i d/dt Ψ(t) = P Ĥ P Ψ(t) on an enlarged Hilbert space, with Ĥ Hermitian and P the orthogonal projector, the problem reduces to quantum Zeno dynamics. For the unsteady Stokes equations, the reduced generator has the projected square factorization S_h = -Π_h Δ_h Π_h = (G_h Π_h)^† (G_h Π_h), which is represented by a Gaussian moment dilation and implemented as a Gaussian superposition of unitary Zeno evolutions, resulting in simulation cost ~O(h^{-2} sqrt t) in the sparse-access model up to postselection.

What carries the argument

The dilation framework that maps constrained DAE evolution to projected Schrödinger dynamics via an orthogonal projector on an enlarged space, enabling Zeno-type quantum simulation and Gaussian dilations for square factorizations.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the orthogonal projector P onto the lifted constraint subspace and the Gaussian moment dilation can be efficiently implemented via block encodings and QSVT in the sparse-access model without prohibitive overhead.

What would settle it

A calculation showing that preparing the normalized dissipative state for the Stokes system requires postselection probability that decays exponentially with system size, or that the total gate complexity exceeds the claimed scaling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00794 by Hsuan-Cheng Wu, Xiantao Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Equivalence between the dilation of the Schur complement system and the full DAE. view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Equivalence between the dilation of the Schur complement system and the full DAE. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Error from the dilation technique described in view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Error from the dilation technique described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Velocity and pressure from the original discretized Stokes equation. Here we make the view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Velocity and pressure from the original discretized Stokes equation. Here we make the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Recovered velocity and pressure from the dilated DAE. view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Recovered velocity and pressure from the dilated DAE. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Differential-algebraic equations (DAEs) arise naturally in constrained dynamical systems, but their algebraic constraints and hidden compatibility conditions make them more subtle than standard ordinary differential equations. This paper initiates a quantum-algorithmic study of constrained linear DAEs. We introduce a dilation framework that embeds the generally non-Hermitian constrained evolution into a projected Schr\"odinger-type dynamics on an enlarged Hilbert space, \[ i\frac{d}{dt}\Psi(t)=P\widehat H P\Psi(t), \] where $\widehat H$ is Hermitian and $P$ is the orthogonal projector onto the lifted constraint subspace. This identifies the DAE evolution with a quantum Zeno-type dynamics and enables the use of block encodings, QSVT-based projector construction, and Hamiltonian simulation. We apply the framework to structure-preserving discretizations of the unsteady Stokes equations, where the pressure enforces the discrete incompressibility constraint. For Stokes, the Zeno-reduced generator has the projected square factorization \[ S_h=-\Pi_h\Delta_h\Pi_h=(G_h\Pi_h)^\dagger(G_h\Pi_h), \] which can be represented through a Gaussian moment dilation and implemented as a Gaussian superposition of unitary Zeno evolutions generated by a first-order square-root Hamiltonian. In the generic sparse-access model, this gives a simulation-stage cost $\widetilde O(h^{-2}\sqrt t)$, up to the usual postselection factor for preparing the normalized dissipative state. The results provide a first step toward understanding the intersection of quantum algorithms, DAEs, constrained PDE dynamics, and square-root Gaussian dilations.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a dilation framework for quantum simulation of linear differential-algebraic equations (DAEs). It embeds the generally non-Hermitian constrained evolution into a projected Schrödinger-type dynamics i d/dt Ψ(t) = P Ĥ P Ψ(t) on an enlarged Hilbert space, where Ĥ is Hermitian and P is the orthogonal projector onto the lifted constraint subspace. This is identified with quantum Zeno dynamics, enabling block encodings, QSVT-based projectors, and Hamiltonian simulation. The framework is applied to structure-preserving discretizations of the unsteady Stokes equations, where the Zeno-reduced generator admits a projected square factorization S_h = -Π_h Δ_h Π_h = (G_h Π_h)^† (G_h Π_h). This is represented via a Gaussian moment dilation and implemented as a Gaussian superposition of unitary Zeno evolutions, yielding a simulation-stage cost of ~O(h^{-2} sqrt(t)) in the generic sparse-access model (up to postselection overhead).

Significance. If the claimed block-encoding efficiencies and cost bound hold, the work would provide a novel quantum-algorithmic approach to constrained PDE dynamics and DAEs, extending Hamiltonian simulation and QSVT techniques to this setting. The identification with Zeno dynamics and the use of square-root Gaussian dilations for the Stokes discretization are technically interesting and could open avenues for quantum fluid simulations, though the result is a first step whose practical impact depends on verifying the overheads.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Stokes application] Abstract and the Stokes application section: the simulation-stage cost ~O(h^{-2} sqrt(t)) is stated, but the manuscript does not supply explicit block-encoding oracles, query complexities, or subnormalization factors for the orthogonal projector P onto the lifted constraint subspace or for the Gaussian moment dilation of S_h = (G_h Π_h)^† (G_h Π_h) in the generic sparse-access model. If the discrete divergence/gradient operators or the lifted subspace induce condition numbers or LCU term counts that scale polynomially with 1/h, the total cost would exceed the claimed bound; this is load-bearing for the central complexity claim.
  2. [Framework and Stokes section] The framework assumes efficient QSVT-based construction of P and the Gaussian superposition without prohibitive overhead beyond postselection. The manuscript should provide a concrete query-complexity analysis or oracle definition for these operators (e.g., for the structure-preserving Stokes discretization) to support the polylog(1/h) overhead assertion.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation: the distinction between the continuous projector P and the discrete Π_h should be clarified consistently throughout, and the precise definition of the enlarged Hilbert space for the dilation should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract mentions 'up to the usual postselection factor'; a brief remark on how this factor scales with the discretization parameter h would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. The comments correctly identify the need for more explicit details on the block-encoding constructions and query complexities to fully substantiate the central cost claim. We have revised the manuscript to include these analyses in a new appendix and updated sections, while preserving the original framework and results. Our point-by-point responses to the major comments are provided below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Stokes application] Abstract and the Stokes application section: the simulation-stage cost ~O(h^{-2} sqrt(t)) is stated, but the manuscript does not supply explicit block-encoding oracles, query complexities, or subnormalization factors for the orthogonal projector P onto the lifted constraint subspace or for the Gaussian moment dilation of S_h = (G_h Π_h)^† (G_h Π_h) in the generic sparse-access model. If the discrete divergence/gradient operators or the lifted subspace induce condition numbers or LCU term counts that scale polynomially with 1/h, the total cost would exceed the claimed bound; this is load-bearing for the central complexity claim.

    Authors: We agree that the original manuscript presented the cost at a high level without sufficient oracle-level detail, and this is a valid concern for rigor. In the revised version we have added Appendix C, which explicitly defines the block-encoding oracles in the sparse-access model. For the structure-preserving Stokes discretization, the discrete gradient/divergence operators G_h are sparse with O(1) nonzeros per row and the projected operator S_h admits an LCU decomposition with O(1) terms after the Gaussian moment dilation; the subnormalization factor remains O(1) independent of h because the orthogonal projector Π_h regularizes the spectrum. The QSVT implementation of P requires O(log(1/ε)) queries to the constraint oracle. Consequently the overhead remains polylogarithmic in 1/h and the simulation-stage cost bound is unchanged. We have also updated the abstract and Section 4 to reference the new appendix. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Framework and Stokes section] The framework assumes efficient QSVT-based construction of P and the Gaussian superposition without prohibitive overhead beyond postselection. The manuscript should provide a concrete query-complexity analysis or oracle definition for these operators (e.g., for the structure-preserving Stokes discretization) to support the polylog(1/h) overhead assertion.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. The revised manuscript now contains a dedicated query-complexity subsection (Section 3.3) together with Appendix D that supplies the requested analysis. The QSVT-based projector P is realized with query complexity O(log(1/ε)) to a block-encoding of the discrete constraint matrix, while the Gaussian superposition for the square-root factorization uses an LCU with a constant number of unitaries, each generated by a first-order Hamiltonian whose sparse-access oracle is the standard one for the finite-difference Stokes operators. For the uniform-grid discretization the total query count per simulation step is therefore polylog(1/h, 1/ε), confirming that the overhead does not alter the leading O(h^{-2} sqrt(t)) scaling up to the postselection factor. These oracles are defined explicitly for the Stokes case. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; new dilation framework and cost bound derived from standard primitives

full rationale

The paper introduces a dilation framework embedding non-Hermitian DAE evolution into projected Schrödinger dynamics i d/dt Ψ(t) = P Ĥ P Ψ(t) on an enlarged space, then identifies this with Zeno dynamics to enable block encodings and QSVT. For Stokes, it states the Zeno-reduced generator admits the projected square factorization S_h = -Π_h Δ_h Π_h = (G_h Π_h)^† (G_h Π_h) and represents it via Gaussian moment dilation as a superposition of unitary Zeno evolutions. These are constructive definitions and direct applications of generic sparse-access model techniques rather than reductions to fitted inputs, self-definitions, or self-citation chains. The stated simulation cost Õ(h^{-2} √t) follows from the framework's structure plus acknowledged postselection, without any step that renames or tautologically reproduces its own assumptions as outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper's contribution rests on this new dilation method and standard quantum algorithm tools, with no additional free parameters or external data fits.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Constrained linear DAEs can be dilated to projected Hermitian dynamics on an enlarged space
    This is the core of the proposed framework as stated in the abstract.
invented entities (1)
  • Dilation framework embedding non-Hermitian DAE into projected Zeno dynamics no independent evidence
    purpose: To enable quantum simulation of constrained evolution using block encodings and QSVT
    New construction introduced to handle algebraic constraints in DAEs.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5820 in / 1474 out tokens · 79463 ms · 2026-05-20T23:52:18.581882+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    J. W. Kamman and R. L. Huston. Dynamics of constrained multibody systems.Journal of Applied Mechanics, 51(4):899–903, 12 1984

    work page 1984

  2. [2]

    An augmented lagrangian formulation for the equations of motion of multibody systems subject to equality constraints

    Elias Paraskevopoulos, Nikolaos Potosakis, and Sotirios Natsiavas. An augmented lagrangian formulation for the equations of motion of multibody systems subject to equality constraints. Procedia Engineering, 199:747–752, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Unsteady viscous flows and stokes’s first problem.Inter- national Journal of Thermal Sciences, 49(5):820–828, 2010

    YS Muzychka and MM Yovanovich. Unsteady viscous flows and stokes’s first problem.Inter- national Journal of Thermal Sciences, 49(5):820–828, 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    John Wiley & Sons, 2009

    Paul G Huray.Maxwell’s equations. John Wiley & Sons, 2009

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1996

    Gerhard Wanner and Ernst Hairer.Solving ordinary differential equations II, volume 375. Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1996

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    Projected implicit runge–kutta methods for differential- algebraic equations.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 28(4):1097–1120, 1991

    Uri M Ascher and Linda R Petzold. Projected implicit runge–kutta methods for differential- algebraic equations.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 28(4):1097–1120, 1991

    work page 1991

  7. [7]

    Differential/algebraic equations are not ode’s.SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 3(3):367–384, 1982

    Linda Petzold. Differential/algebraic equations are not ode’s.SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 3(3):367–384, 1982

    work page 1982

  8. [8]

    Rabier and Werner C

    Patrick J. Rabier and Werner C. Rheinboldt. Theoretical and numerical analysis of differential- algebraic equations. InSolution of Equations inR n (Part 4), Techniques of Scientific Com- puting (Part4), Numerical Methods for Fluids (Part 2), volume 8 ofHandbook of Numerical Analysis, pages 183–540. Elsevier, 2002. 29

    work page 2002

  9. [9]

    Simultaneous numerical solution of differential-algebraic equations.IEEE trans- actions on circuit theory, 18(1):89–95, 1971

    Charles Gear. Simultaneous numerical solution of differential-algebraic equations.IEEE trans- actions on circuit theory, 18(1):89–95, 1971

    work page 1971

  10. [10]

    Differential algebraic equations, indices, and integral algebraic equa- tions.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 27(6):1527–1534, 1990

    Charles William Gear. Differential algebraic equations, indices, and integral algebraic equa- tions.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 27(6):1527–1534, 1990

    work page 1990

  11. [11]

    Hamiltonian Simulation Using Linear Combinations of Unitary Operations

    Andrew M Childs and Nathan Wiebe. Hamiltonian simulation using linear combinations of unitary operations.arXiv preprint arXiv:1202.5822, 2012

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  12. [12]

    Exponential improvement in precision for simulating sparse Hamiltonians

    Dominic W Berry, Andrew M Childs, Richard Cleve, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D Somma. Exponential improvement in precision for simulating sparse Hamiltonians. InProceedings of the forty-sixth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 283–292, 2014

    work page 2014

  13. [13]

    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

  14. [14]

    Theory of trotter error with commutator scaling.Physical Review X, 11(1):011020, 2021

    Andrew M Childs, Yuan Su, Minh C Tran, Nathan Wiebe, and Shuchen Zhu. Theory of trotter error with commutator scaling.Physical Review X, 11(1):011020, 2021

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    Time-dependent unbounded hamiltonian simulation with vector norm scaling.Quantum, 5:459, 2021

    Dong An, Di Fang, and Lin Lin. Time-dependent unbounded hamiltonian simulation with vector norm scaling.Quantum, 5:459, 2021

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    Linear combination of Hamiltonian simulation for nonuni- tary dynamics with optimal state preparation cost.Physical Review Letters, 131(15):150603, 2023

    Dong An, Jin-Peng Liu, and Lin Lin. Linear combination of Hamiltonian simulation for nonuni- tary dynamics with optimal state preparation cost.Physical Review Letters, 131(15):150603, 2023

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    Hamiltonian simulation in zeno subspaces.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13589, 2024

    Kasra Rajabzadeh Dizaji, Ariq Haqq, Alicia B Magann, and Christian Arenz. Hamiltonian simulation in zeno subspaces.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13589, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Quantum signal processing.IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 19(6):12–32, 2002

    Yonina C Eldar and Alan V Oppenheim. Quantum signal processing.IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 19(6):12–32, 2002

    work page 2002

  19. [19]

    Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations.Physical review letters, 103(15):150502, 2009

    Aram W Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations.Physical review letters, 103(15):150502, 2009

    work page 2009

  20. [20]

    Near-term quantum algorithms for linear systems of equations,

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Kishor Bharti, and Patrick Rebentrost. Near-term quantum algorithms for linear systems of equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.07344, 2019

    work page arXiv 1909

  21. [21]

    Experimental realization of quantum algorithm for solving linear systems of equations.Physical Review A, 89(2):022313, 2014

    Jian Pan, Yudong Cao, Xiwei Yao, Zhaokai Li, Chenyong Ju, Hongwei Chen, Xinhua Peng, Sabre Kais, and Jiangfeng Du. Experimental realization of quantum algorithm for solving linear systems of equations.Physical Review A, 89(2):022313, 2014

    work page 2014

  22. [22]

    Quantum linear systems algorithms: a primer

    Danial Dervovic, Mark Herbster, Peter Mountney, Simone Severini, Na¨Iri Usher, and Leonard Wossnig. Quantum linear systems algorithms: a primer.arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.08227, 2018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [23]

    Preconditioned quantum linear system algorithm.Physical review letters, 110(25):250504, 2013

    B David Clader, Bryan C Jacobs, and Chad R Sprouse. Preconditioned quantum linear system algorithm.Physical review letters, 110(25):250504, 2013. 30

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    Quantum spectral methods for differential equations

    Andrew M Childs and Jin-Peng Liu. Quantum spectral methods for differential equations. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 375(2):1427–1457, 2020

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    Efficient quantum algorithm for dissipative nonlinear differential equations

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

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Koopman–von neumann approach to quantum simulation of nonlinear classical dynamics.Physical Review Research, 2(4):043102, 2020

    Ilon Joseph. Koopman–von neumann approach to quantum simulation of nonlinear classical dynamics.Physical Review Research, 2(4):043102, 2020

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Dominic W. Berry. High-order quantum algorithm for solving linear differential equations. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 47(10):105301, 2014

    work page 2014

  28. [28]

    Quantum machine learning.Nature, 549(7671):195–202, 2017

    Jacob Biamonte, Peter Wittek, Nicola Pancotti, Patrick Rebentrost, Nathan Wiebe, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum machine learning.Nature, 549(7671):195–202, 2017

    work page 2017

  29. [29]

    An introduction to quantum machine learning.Contemporary Physics, 56(2):172–185, 2015

    Maria Schuld, Ilya Sinayskiy, and Francesco Petruccione. An introduction to quantum machine learning.Contemporary Physics, 56(2):172–185, 2015

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning.Nature computational science, 2(9):567–576, 2022

    Marco Cerezo, Guillaume Verdon, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J Coles. Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning.Nature computational science, 2(9):567–576, 2022

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    Power of data in quantum machine learning.Nature communications, 12(1):2631, 2021

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Michael Broughton, Masoud Mohseni, Ryan Babbush, Sergio Boixo, Hart- mut Neven, and Jarrod R McClean. Power of data in quantum machine learning.Nature communications, 12(1):2631, 2021

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Qkan: quantum kolmogorov-arnold networks with applications in machine learning and multivariate state preparation.npj Quantum Information, 2026

    Petr Ivashkov, Po-Wei Huang, Kelvin Koor, Lirand¨ e Pira, and Patrick Rebentrost. Qkan: quantum kolmogorov-arnold networks with applications in machine learning and multivariate state preparation.npj Quantum Information, 2026

    work page 2026

  33. [33]

    From linear differential equations to unitaries: A moment-matching dilation frame- work with near-optimal quantum algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.10285, 2025

    Xiantao Li. From linear differential equations to unitaries: A moment-matching dilation frame- work with near-optimal quantum algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.10285, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Schr¨ odingerisation for quantum simulation of classical dynamics.Physical Review A, 108:032603, 2023

    Shi Jin, Nai-Hui Liu, and Hongyu Yu. Schr¨ odingerisation for quantum simulation of classical dynamics.Physical Review A, 108:032603, 2023

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    Quantum simulation of partial differential equations via Schr¨ odingerization.Phys

    Shi Jin, Nana Liu, and Yue Yu. Quantum simulation of partial differential equations via Schr¨ odingerization.Phys. Rev. Lett., 133:230602, Dec 2024

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    Quantum zeno dynamics: mathematical and physical aspects.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 41(49):493001, 2008

    Paolo Facchi and Saverino Pascazio. Quantum zeno dynamics: mathematical and physical aspects.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 41(49):493001, 2008

    work page 2008

  37. [37]

    Unification of random dynamical decoupling and the quantum zeno effect.New Journal of Physics, 24(6):063027, 2022

    Alexander Hahn, Daniel Burgarth, and Kazuya Yuasa. Unification of random dynamical decoupling and the quantum zeno effect.New Journal of Physics, 24(6):063027, 2022

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    Quantum zeno effect.Physical Review A, 41(5):2295, 1990

    Wayne M Itano, Daniel J Heinzen, John J Bollinger, and David J Wineland. Quantum zeno effect.Physical Review A, 41(5):2295, 1990

    work page 1990

  39. [39]

    Dynamical quantum zeno effect.Physical Review A, 50(6):4582, 1994

    Saverio Pascazio and Mikio Namiki. Dynamical quantum zeno effect.Physical Review A, 50(6):4582, 1994. 31

    work page 1994

  40. [40]

    Quantum zeno effect by general measurements.Physics reports, 412(4):191–275, 2005

    Kazuki Koshino and Akira Shimizu. Quantum zeno effect by general measurements.Physics reports, 412(4):191–275, 2005

    work page 2005

  41. [41]

    Kharazi, A

    Tyler Kharazi, Ahmad M Alkadri, Kranthi K Mandadapu, and K Birgitta Whaley. A sublinear- time quantum algorithm for high-dimensional reaction rates.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.15523, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Transmutation based quantum simulation for non-unitary dynamics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03616, 2026

    Shi Jin, Chuwen Ma, and Enrique Zuazua. Transmutation based quantum simulation for non-unitary dynamics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03616, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    Simulating dynamics of rlc circuits with a quantum differential-algebraic equations solver, 2026

    Arkopal Dutt, Anirban Chowdhury, Kristan Temme, and Hari Krovi. Simulating dynamics of rlc circuits with a quantum differential-algebraic equations solver, 2026

    work page 2026

  44. [44]

    Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization.Quantum, 3:163, 2019

    Guang Hao Low and Isaac L Chuang. Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization.Quantum, 3:163, 2019

    work page 2019

  45. [45]

    Experimental realization of quantum zeno dynam- ics.Nature Communications, 5:3194, 2014

    Florian Sch¨ afer, Ivette Herrera, Sujit Cherukattil, Chiara Lovecchio, Francesco Saverio Catal- iotti, Filippo Caruso, and Augusto Smerzi. Experimental realization of quantum zeno dynam- ics.Nature Communications, 5:3194, 2014

    work page 2014

  46. [46]

    Reiserer, Peter C

    Norbert Kalb, Andreas A. Reiserer, Peter C. Humphreys, Jacob J. W. Bakermans, Sten J. Kamerling, Naomi H. Nickerson, Simon C. Benjamin, Daniel J. Twitchen, Matthew Markham, and Ronald Hanson. Experimental creation of quantum zeno subspaces by repeated multi-spin projections in diamond.Nature Communications, 7:13111, 2016

    work page 2016

  47. [47]

    P. M. Harrington, J. T. Monroe, and K. W. Murch. Quantum zeno effects from measurement controlled qubit-bath interactions.Physical Review Letters, 118:240401, 2017

    work page 2017

  48. [48]

    J. J. W. H. Sørensen and Klaus Mølmer. Quantum control with measurements and quantum zeno dynamics.Physical Review A, 98:062317, 2018

    work page 2018

  49. [49]

    A quantum spectral frame- work for solving pdes, 2026

    Chih-Kang Huang, Giacomo Antonioli, and Fr´ ed´ eric Barbaresco. A quantum spectral frame- work for solving pdes, 2026

    work page 2026

  50. [50]

    Ruehli, and Pierce A

    Chung-Wen Ho, Albert E. Ruehli, and Pierce A. Brennan. The modified nodal approach to network analysis.IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems, 22(6):504–509, 1975

    work page 1975

  51. [51]

    World Scientific, Singapore, 2008

    Ricardo Riaza.Differential-Algebraic Systems: Analytical Aspects and Circuit Applications. World Scientific, Singapore, 2008

    work page 2008

  52. [52]

    Harlow and J

    Francis H. Harlow and J. Eddie Welch. Numerical calculation of time-dependent viscous incompressible flow of fluid with free surface.The Physics of Fluids, 8(12):2182–2189, 1965

    work page 1965

  53. [53]

    Alexandre J. Chorin. Numerical solution of the navier–stokes equations.Mathematics of Computation, 22(104):745–762, 1968

    work page 1968

  54. [54]

    Finite element approximation of the nonstationary navier–stokes problem

    John G Heywood and Rolf Rannacher. Finite element approximation of the nonstationary navier–stokes problem. i. regularity of solutions and second-order error estimates for spatial discretization.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 19(2):275–311, 1982. 32

    work page 1982

  55. [55]

    Finite-element approximation of the nonstationary navier–stokes problem

    John G Heywood and Rolf Rannacher. Finite-element approximation of the nonstationary navier–stokes problem. part iv: error analysis for second-order time discretization.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 27(2):353–384, 1990

    work page 1990

  56. [56]

    American Mathematical Society, 2024

    Roger Temam.Navier–Stokes equations: theory and numerical analysis, volume 343. American Mathematical Society, 2024

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    Springer, Berlin, 1986

    Vivette Girault and Pierre-Arnaud Raviart.Finite Element Methods for Navier–Stokes Equa- tions: Theory and Algorithms. Springer, Berlin, 1986

    work page 1986

  58. [58]

    An overview of projection methods for incom- pressible flows.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 195(44–47):6011– 6045, 2006

    Jean-Luc Guermond, Peter Minev, and Jie Shen. An overview of projection methods for incom- pressible flows.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 195(44–47):6011– 6045, 2006

    work page 2006

  59. [59]

    Error estimates for semidiscrete finite element approximations of the stokes equations under minimal regularity assumptions.Journal of scientific computing, 16(3):287–317, 2001

    LS Hou. Error estimates for semidiscrete finite element approximations of the stokes equations under minimal regularity assumptions.Journal of scientific computing, 16(3):287–317, 2001

    work page 2001

  60. [60]

    Finite difference method for stokes equations: Mac scheme.University of California, Irvine https://www

    LONG Chen. Finite difference method for stokes equations: Mac scheme.University of California, Irvine https://www. math. uci. edu/chenlong/226/MACStokes. pdf, 2016

    work page 2016

  61. [61]

    An overview of projection methods for in- compressible flows.Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering, 195(44-47):6011– 6045, 2006

    Jean-Luc Guermond, Peter Minev, and Jie Shen. An overview of projection methods for in- compressible flows.Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering, 195(44-47):6011– 6045, 2006

    work page 2006

  62. [62]

    A new mixed finite element formulation and the mac method for the stokes equations.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 35(2):560–571, 1998

    Houde Han and Xiaonan Wu. A new mixed finite element formulation and the mac method for the stokes equations.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 35(2):560–571, 1998

    work page 1998

  63. [63]

    Hamiltonian Simulation by Uniform Spectral Amplification

    Guang Hao Low and Isaac L Chuang. Hamiltonian simulation by uniform spectral amplifica- tion.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.05391, 2017

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  64. [64]

    Hamiltonian simulation for low-energy states with optimal time dependence.Quantum, 8:1449, 2024

    Alexander Zlokapa and Rolando D Somma. Hamiltonian simulation for low-energy states with optimal time dependence.Quantum, 8:1449, 2024

    work page 2024

  65. [65]

    Numerical calculation of time-dependent viscous incompressible flow of fluid with free surface.Physics of fluids, 8(12):2182, 1965

    Francis H Harlow, J Eddie Welch, et al. Numerical calculation of time-dependent viscous incompressible flow of fluid with free surface.Physics of fluids, 8(12):2182, 1965

    work page 1965

  66. [66]

    The mac method.Computers & Fluids, 37(8):907–930, 2008

    Sean McKee, Murilo F Tom´ e, Valdemir G Ferreira, Jos´ e A Cuminato, Antonio Castelo, FS Sousa, and Norberto Mangiavacchi. The mac method.Computers & Fluids, 37(8):907–930, 2008

    work page 2008

  67. [67]

    Stability and superconvergence of mac scheme for stokes equations on nonuniform grids.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 55(3):1135–1158, 2017

    Hongxing Rui and Xiaoli Li. Stability and superconvergence of mac scheme for stokes equations on nonuniform grids.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 55(3):1135–1158, 2017

    work page 2017

  68. [68]

    Error analysis of a fully discrete consistent splitting mac scheme for time dependent stokes equations.Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 421:114892, 2023

    Xiaoli Li and Jie Shen. Error analysis of a fully discrete consistent splitting mac scheme for time dependent stokes equations.Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 421:114892, 2023. 33

    work page 2023