Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Exponential Reduction of Mesh Dependence in Quantum Estimation of Parabolic PDE Observables

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A multilevel quantum algorithm can estimate heat-equation observables with complexity O~(1+1/(Tε)), removing the polynomial mesh-size penalty that direct methods pay.

desk verdict A serious multilevel construction for parabolic observables with a real linear-result contribution; the quadratic complexity claim is underproven because the needed block-encoding normalization is not constructed. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.18113 v1 pith:F7YV6W4N submitted 2026-07-20 quant-ph

Xiantao Li This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 65N3081P68
keywords quantumalgorithmsforPDEsparabolicsemigroupmultilevelalgorithmmeshdependencecorrectedresolventRitz–Schurfactorizationamplitudeestimationheatequationobservables
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 claims that a quantum computer can estimate physically meaningful scalar outputs of a parabolic PDE—regional heat content, heat flux, dissipated energy—without ever paying the polynomial cost of resolving the finest spatial mesh. Direct quantum semigroup methods cost O~(√T/h), and preparing the decaying normalized solution can carry exponentially small success probabilities. The paper instead moves the fine–coarse grid cancellation inside the quantum circuit: a contour-based linear combination of shifted resolvents encodes the difference between fine and coarse semigroups, and a shifted Ritz–Schur factorization exposes that difference's O(h²) two-grid normalization. Under stated access assumptions, both linear and quadratic observables (readout order 0≤χ≤2) are estimated with complexity O~(1+1/(Tε)), with only polylogarithmic dependence on the mesh size. The gain is removal of polynomial h⁻¹ dependence, not removal of the fundamental ε⁻¹ inference cost.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the corrected resolvent D_ℓ(z) = (L_ℓ+zI)⁻¹ − P_ℓ (L_{ℓ−1}+zI)⁻¹ P_ℓ†, a fine–coarse difference of shifted inverses. Its shifted Ritz–Schur factorization D_ℓ = J_R^ℓ(z) Σ_ℓ(z)⁻¹ J_L^ℓ(z)† decomposes the difference into two small Ritz maps (normalization O(h_ℓ)) and a Schur complement (normalization O(1+|z|h_ℓ²) with uniform lower bound), so the whole corrected resolvent is block-encoded at normalization O(h_ℓ²). A hyperbolic inverse-Laplace contour turns each target-time correction into a linear combination over these shifted resolvents, whose weights sum to O(1/T), giving the level-correction normalization O(1/T) and level cost c_ℓ = O(h_ℓ^{2−χ}/T). Optimizing amp

What would settle it

On a variable-coefficient unstructured tetrahedral mesh, compute the norm of D_ℓ(z) = (L_ℓ+zI)⁻¹ − P_ℓ (L_{ℓ−1}+zI)⁻¹ P_ℓ† at several contour nodes and check whether it actually scales as h_ℓ²/(1+|z|h_ℓ²) and whether the shifted Ritz–Schur Schur complement has a uniform lower bound; if either fails at any admissible z, the O~(1+1/(Tε)) claim collapses for that discretization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result (Theorem 4.8) is: under explicit access assumptions—compatible level states and readouts, a nested Galerkin hierarchy, and a block-encodable corrected resolvent built from shifted Ritz–Schur factors—both linear and quadratic observables of the semigroup e^{-TL} can be estimated to additive error ε with cost O~(1+1/(Tε)), with only polylogarithmic dependence on the finest mesh width h. This removes the polynomial h⁻¹ factor that direct semigroup implementations retain. The key is representing the fine–coarse level difference Δ_ℓ as an observable of a scaled joint state, then reconstructing the target-time correction from shifted resolvent differences via an inverse-Laplace

Load-bearing premise

The shifted Ritz–Schur access condition—two Ritz maps block-encoded at O(h_ℓ) normalization, a shifted Schur complement block-encoded at O(1+|z|h_ℓ²) with a uniform lower bound on its singular values, and polylogarithmic implementation cost—must hold; the paper verifies it for Fourier hierarchies and a dyadic piecewise-constant P1 construction but leaves general unstructured finite elements open.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, gradient-dependent outputs such as heat flux and dissipation (χ=1,2) lose their extra polynomial mesh dependence, achieving the same asymptotic cost as simple L² readouts.
  • For constant-coefficient problems on tensor-product domains, a concrete circuit exists: a quantum Fourier or sine transform, a spectral-band selector, and reversible diagonal arithmetic—no iterative linear solver is needed.
  • Choosing h=Θ(√(Tε)) to meet the positive-time spatial accuracy O(h²/T) does not change the dominant complexity, because h enters only polylogarithmically.
  • The nonhomogeneous equation ∂_t u + Lu = f(t) can be handled by the same contour machinery, replacing the initial-data input with u₀ + f̂(z_k) at each contour node.
  • Both linear and quadratic observables—including energy-type quadratic readouts—fit in the same O~(1+1/(Tε)) bound, which direct estimators could not achieve for χ=2.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is to verify the Ritz–Schur access condition numerically on small unstructured finite-element hierarchies with smooth variable coefficients; if the Schur complement's singular values dip below c_Σ or the Ritz maps' normalization grows beyond O(h_ℓ), the method needs a different detail-space construction.
  • The same principle—encode the fine–coarse correction rather than the solution—may transfer to wave or advection–diffusion equations, but the interlevel correction scales and contour representations would need separate analysis.
  • The access conditions double as design criteria: hierarchical finite-element spaces engineered for reversible, local interlevel maps would unlock the method beyond structured meshes.
  • For the Fourier case, a near-term resource estimate could be obtained by counting the transform, band-selector, and diagonal-arithmetic gates; no part of the construction requires solving a linear system inside the circuit.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops quantum algorithms for estimating linear and quadratic observables of parabolic PDEs discretized by Galerkin methods. It first presents three direct semigroup block encodings (QSVT, Gaussian dilation, and inverse-Laplace contour resolvents) with coherent cost O~(√T/h), then constructs a multilevel estimator that places fine-coarse cancellation inside the circuit via exact telescoping identities, a target-time contour representation, and a shifted Ritz–Schur factorization of the corrected resolvent. The main theorem (Thm. 4.8) claims complexity O~(1 + 1/(Tε)) for observables of readout order 0≤χ≤2, with only polylogarithmic dependence on the finest mesh, under stated access assumptions. The paper also gives explicit realizations for Fourier/sine hierarchies and a 1D piecewise-constant dyadic P1 hierarchy, while honestly leaving general unstructured finite-element oracle construction as an open problem.

Significance. The linear branch of the paper is a genuine end-to-end improvement: it removes both the final-state postselection penalty and the polynomial mesh dependence, with carefully derived analytic estimates and an honestly conditional access model. The quadratic branch, if repaired, would extend the result to flux and dissipation observables, which have no direct counterpart in the LMS algorithms. The paper is commendably explicit about which constructions are fully supplied and which are assumed; the derivations contain no fitted parameters. However, the quadratic complexity claim is not currently supported by the stated block-encoding composition, and this gap is load-bearing for the main theorem.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.5 / Prop. 3.1 / Eq. (87)] The quadratic level cost is not derived from the stated block encodings. Prop. 3.1 gives quadratic cost O(α_E^2 α_M/ε). For the level map, E_hat_ℓ = [D_hat_ℓ; e^{-TL_{ℓ-1}}P_ℓ†] has norm O(1), not O(T^{-1}), while M_hat_ℓ has norm O(h^{2-χ}); generic block-encoding composition therefore gives normalization O(h^{2-χ}) and per-level cost O(h^{2-χ}/ε_ℓ), not O(h^{2-χ}/(Tε_ℓ)). The T^{-1} factor lives only in the upper row D_hat_ℓ. Although E_hat† M_hat E_hat analytically has norm O(h^{2-χ}/T) because the lower-right block of M_hat is zero, the paper provides no block encoding with this matched normalization. The sentence in Section 4.5 that the zero lower-right block is 'crucial for this scaling' is not a proof. Without an explicit construction, minimizing the per-level costs gives O(1/ε) for χ<2 and O(L²/ε) for χ=2, not the claimed 1+(Tε)^{-1} in Theorem 4.8. This directly affects the quad
  2. [Section 4.4 / Prop. 4.7] The shifted Ritz–Schur access model is the load-bearing premise for the non-Fourier branch. For the 1D P1 realization, the paper verifies the analytic scaling of the factors (Eqs. (114)–(117)) but does not actually supply the block encodings of P_ℓ, W_ℓ, and the Schur complement Σ_ℓ(z) at the required normalizations. The paper honestly states that general unstructured finite-element access is open, and Theorem 4.8 is phrased conditionally. Still, the non-Fourier branch of the theorem should explicitly say that its applicability to finite elements is conditional on oracle constructions that are described but not provided. This narrows the scope but does not by itself invalidate the conditional theorem.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1] Typo: 'navegatte' should be 'navigate'.
  2. [Section 4.5] Typo: 'caling' should be 'scaling'.
  3. [Section 5] 'PDF flow' should be 'PDE flow' in the outlook paragraph.
  4. [Section 1.3] The shorthand 'T≥1' for λ*T≥1 is used throughout; it would help to define it in the introduction rather than only in the conventions paragraph.
  5. [Section 4.4] For the sine–Galerkin hierarchy, the claim that 'newly added modes satisfy λ_j = Θ(h_ℓ^{-2})' is correct but the dependence on n_ℓ should be stated explicitly to make the Θ constant independent of level.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the multilevel complexity bound follows from explicit corrected-resolvent and readout identities, and the self-citations are background rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is analytic and conditional rather than fitted. The main complexity result, C_ML = O~(1 + 1/(T eps)), is obtained by: (i) exact telescoping identities for level corrections (Eq. 68 and Lemma 4.3); (ii) a contour representation of the corrected transfer map \widehat D_ell(T) (Eq. 95 and Theorem 4.5); and (iii) an explicit corrected-resolvent access condition alpha_D = O(h_ell^2) (Eq. 100). That access condition is not tuned to match the final complexity; it is verified directly for the sine-Galerkin hierarchy and for a one-dimensional energy-orthogonal P1 construction. The readout scale c_ell = O(h^{2-chi}/T) is derived from the constructed normalization of \widehat D_ell(T) together with the h^2 factors in the readout matrices (Eq. 87), not assumed as the desired complexity. The quadratic case is terse: the zero lower-right block of \widehat M_ell is what removes the O(1)-normalized coarse-coarse contribution, leaving terms with at least one O(T^{-1}) factor. Even if a fully explicit matched block-encoding construction for the quadratic composition is not spelled out, that would be a proof-completeness concern, not circularity. The self-citation [37] is used only for a standard block-inverse formula in Lemma 4.6 and as background for the multilevel elliptic framework; it does not carry the uniqueness of the present construction, and the factorization is proven in the paper. No load-bearing premise is defined in terms of the target result, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the derivation is self-contained apart from minor background self-citations, and no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result introduces no fitted constants or new physical entities. The main extra input is the access model in (108), which is an algorithmic assumption rather than a physical postulate; it is the structural price the result pays.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Elliptic coefficient a(x) is uniformly elliptic, 0<c_min≤a≤c_max<∞, and the elliptic problem has H2 regularity.
    Section 2.1; used for Galerkin convergence, resolvent estimates, and the smoothing bound.
  • domain assumption Nested conforming P1/Q1 Galerkin hierarchy V0⊂...⊂VL with h_ℓ=2^{-ℓ}h0, quasi-uniform and shape-regular, with standard FE inverse/approximation estimates.
    Section 4.1; needed for eigenvalue scale O(h^{-2}), prolongation isometries, and two-grid estimates.
  • standard math Standard semidiscrete Galerkin a priori estimates: uniform O(h^2) error for smooth data and nonsmooth-data smoothing bound ∥E(t)-E_j(t)Π_j∥≤C min{1, h_j^2/t}.
    Section 2.4 and Lemma 4.2; the h^2/T correction scale is the basis of the multilevel gain.
  • domain assumption Input oracles: for every level, normalized states |y_ℓ(0)⟩ and readouts can be prepared with polylog cost, and physical norms are known (Assumption 4.1).
    Section 4.1; without this the levelwise amplitude-estimation costs cannot be bounded.
  • ad hoc to paper Shifted Ritz–Schur access model: JR/JL block-encodable at O(h_ℓ), Σ at O(1+|z_k|h_ℓ²), s_min(Σ)≥c_Σ>0, selected costs polylog (Proposition 4.7).
    The main theorem depends on this; fully verified for sine/Fourier hierarchies and 1D piecewise-constant dyadic P1, left open for general unstructured FEM.
  • standard math Sectorial inverse-Laplace quadrature theorem of López-Fernández–Palencia–Schädle and Weideman–Trefethen (Lemma A.3).
    Used for contour discretization of the semigroup and corrected resolvent; proof deferred to Appendix A.
  • standard math QSVT (GSLW) polynomial approximation and block-encoding composition framework.
    Used in Propositions 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, and 4.7.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exponential Reduction of Mesh Dependence in Quantum Estimation of Parabolic PDE Observables." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F7YV6W4N

@misc{pith2026260718113,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exponential Reduction of Mesh Dependence in Quantum Estimation of Parabolic PDE Observables},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F7YV6W4N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18113}
}
abstract

Can a quantum PDE algorithm avoid the polynomial cost of resolving a fine spatial mesh? For standard fixed-order discretizations, direct classical methods require work polynomial in $h^{-1}$, or equivalently in the number of spatial degrees of freedom $N_h=\Theta(h^{-d})$. Direct quantum implementations of a parabolic semigroup still have coherent complexity $\widetilde{\mathcal O}(\sqrt{T}/h)$, and gradient-dependent observables such as heat flux and dissipation introduce additional mesh dependence. Decay of the solution norm will further suppress the postselection probability for preparing a normalized final state. We develop a multilevel quantum algorithm that estimates linear and quadratic observables $directly$ and places the fine--coarse cancellation inside the circuit before measurement. A contour-based LCU reconstructs each target-time correction from a coherent family of shifted resolvent differences. Rather than block encoding the fine and coarse inverses separately, we encode their difference through a shifted Ritz--Schur factorization, exposing its $\mathcal O(h_\ell^2)$ two-grid normalization. For Fourier hierarchies, the corresponding SELECT oracle consists of a quantum Fourier or sine transform, a spectral-band selector, and reversible diagonal arithmetic. We also give a non-Fourier realization based on energy-orthogonal dyadic midpoint details in one dimension, together with structured tensor-product extensions under fixed-rank coefficient and access assumptions. For readouts with derivative order $0\le\chi\le2$, optimized amplitude estimation removes $all$ polynomial dependence on the finest mesh size. Under the stated access assumptions, both linear and quadratic observables can be estimated with complexity $\widetilde{\mathcal O}(1+(T\epsilon)^{-1})$, with only polylogarithmic dependence on $h^{-1}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18113 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic hyperbolic contours for the inverse-Laplace representation. The contour [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Quantum dynamics simulation of the advection-diffusion equation.Physical Review Research, 7(4):043318, 2025

    Hirad Alipanah, Feng Zhang, Yong-Xin Yao, Richard Thompson, Nam Nguyen, Junyu Liu, Peyman Givi, Brian J McDermott, and Juan José Mendoza-Arenas. Quantum dynamics simulation of the advection-diffusion equation.Physical Review Research, 7(4):043318, 2025

    2025

  2. [2]

    Quantum algorithm for linear non-unitary dynamics with near-optimal dependence on all parameters.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 407(1):19, 2026

    Dong An, Andrew M Childs, and Lin Lin. Quantum algorithm for linear non-unitary dynamics with near-optimal dependence on all parameters.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 407(1):19, 2026

    2026

  3. [3]

    Quantum-accelerated multilevel monte carlo methods for stochastic differential equations in mathematical finance.Quantum, 5:481, 2021

    Dong An, Noah Linden, Jin-Peng Liu, Ashley Montanaro, Changpeng Shao, and Jiasu Wang. Quantum-accelerated multilevel monte carlo methods for stochastic differential equations in mathematical finance.Quantum, 5:481, 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    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

    2023

  5. [5]

    Berry, Andrew M

    Dominic W. Berry, Andrew M. Childs, Richard Cleve, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D. Somma. Simulating hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated taylor series.Physical Review Letters, 114:090502, 2015

    2015

  6. [6]

    Berry, Andrew M

    Dominic W. Berry, Andrew M. Childs, Aaron Ostrander, and Guoming Wang. Quantum algorithm for linear differential equations with exponentially improved dependence on precision. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 356:1057–1081, 2017

    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

    1990

  8. [8]

    Bramble, Alfred H

    James H. Bramble, Alfred H. Schatz, Vidar Thomée, and Lars B. Wahlbin. Some convergence estimates for semidiscrete galerkin type approximations for parabolic equations.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 14(2):218–241, 1977

    1977

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Brenner and L

    Susanne C. Brenner and L. Ridgway Scott.The Mathematical Theory of Finite Element Methods. Springer, New York, 3 edition, 2008

    2008

  2. [10]

    Quantum 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. Quantum algorithm and circuit design solving the poisson equation.New Journal of Physics, 15:013021, 2013

    2013

  3. [11]

    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

    1920

  4. [12]

    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. 27

    2021

  5. [13]

    Childs and Nathan Wiebe

    Andrew M. Childs and Nathan Wiebe. Hamiltonian simulation using linear combinations of unitary operations.Quantum Information and Computation, 12(11–12):901–924, 2012

    2012

  6. [14]

    B. D. Clader, B. C. Jacobs, and C. R. Sprouse. Preconditioned quantum linear system algorithm. Physical Review Letters, 110:250504, 2013

    2013

  7. [15]

    Quantum algorithms revisited.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    Richard Cleve, Artur Ekert, Chiara Macchiavello, and Michele Mosca. Quantum algorithms revisited.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 454(1969):339–354, 1998

    1969

  8. [16]

    Optimal scaling quantum linear-systems solver via discrete adiabatic theorem.PRX quantum, 3(4):040303, 2022

    Pedro CS 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(4):040303, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Quantum algorithm for simulating the wave equation.Physical Review A, 99(1):012323, 2019

    Pedro CS Costa, Stephen Jordan, and Aaron Ostrander. Quantum algorithm for simulating the wave equation.Physical Review A, 99(1):012323, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Quantum realization of the finite element method

    Matthias Deiml and Daniel Peterseim. Quantum realization of the finite element method. Mathematics of Computation, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    American mathematical society, 2022

    Lawrence C Evans.Partial differential equations, volume 19. American mathematical society, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Time-marching based quantum solvers for time-dependent linear differential equations.Quantum, 7:955, 2023

    Di Fang, Lin Lin, and Yu Tong. Time-marching based quantum solvers for time-dependent linear differential equations.Quantum, 7:955, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Floater, Ewald Quak, and Martin Reimers

    Michael S. Floater, Ewald Quak, and Martin Reimers. Filter bank algorithms for piecewise linear prewavelets on bounded triangulations of arbitrary topology.Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 119(1–2):185–207, 2000

    2000

  14. [22]

    Gander and Martin Neumüller

    Martin J. Gander and Martin Neumüller. Analysis of a new space–time parallel multigrid algorithm for parabolic problems.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 38(4):A2173–A2208, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Michael B. Giles. Multilevel monte carlo path simulation.Operations Research, 56(3):607–617, 2008

    2008

  16. [24]

    Michael B. Giles. Multilevel monte carlo methods.Acta Numerica, 24:259–328, 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    Improved quantum algorithms for fidelity estimation, 2022

    András Gilyén and Alexander Poremba. Improved quantum algorithms for fidelity estimation, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: Exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics

    András Gilyén, 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

    2019

  19. [27]

    Springer, 1985

    Wolfgang Hackbusch.Multi-Grid Methods and Applications. Springer, 1985

    1985

  20. [28]

    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

    2009

  21. [29]

    Multilevel monte carlo methods

    Stefan Heinrich. Multilevel monte carlo methods. InLarge-Scale Scientific Computing, volume 2179 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 58–67. Springer, 2001. 28

    2001

  22. [30]

    A space–time multigrid method for parabolic partial differential equations.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 16(4):848–864, 1995

    Graham Horton and Stefan Vandewalle. A space–time multigrid method for parabolic partial differential equations.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 16(4):848–864, 1995

    1995

  23. [31]

    Quantum circuits for partial differential equations via schrödingerisation.Quantum, 8:1563, 2024

    Junpeng Hu, Shi Jin, Nana Liu, and Lei Zhang. Quantum circuits for partial differential equations via schrödingerisation.Quantum, 8:1563, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Quantum simulation of partial differential equations via schrödingerisation.Physical Review Letters, 133:230602, 2024

    Shi Jin, Nana Liu, and Yue Yu. Quantum simulation of partial differential equations via schrödingerisation.Physical Review Letters, 133:230602, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Transmutation based quantum simulation for non-unitary dynamics, 2026

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

    2026

  26. [34]

    Alkadri, Kranthi K

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

    2026

  27. [35]

    Improved quantum algorithms for linear and nonlinear differential equations

    Hari Krovi. Improved quantum algorithms for linear and nonlinear differential equations. Quantum, 7:913, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    From linear differential equations to unitaries: A moment-matching dilation framework with near-optimal quantum algorithms.PRX Quantum, 7(2):020350, 2026

    Xiantao Li. From linear differential equations to unitaries: A moment-matching dilation framework with near-optimal quantum algorithms.PRX Quantum, 7(2):020350, 2026

    2026

  29. [37]

    Toward efficient end-to-end quantum elliptic pde solvers: A multilevel correction algorithm for direct observable estimations, 2026

    Xiantao Li. Toward efficient end-to-end quantum elliptic pde solvers: A multilevel correction algorithm for direct observable estimations, 2026

    2026

  30. [38]

    Structure-preserving quantum method of lines for evolutionary pdes with mixed boundary conditions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.03407, 2026

    Yixuan Liang and Jin-Peng Liu. Structure-preserving quantum method of lines for evolutionary pdes with mixed boundary conditions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.03407, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Quantum vs

    Noah Linden, Ashley Montanaro, and Changpeng Shao. Quantum vs. classical algorithms for solving the heat equation.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 395:601–641, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    On the numerical inversion of the laplace transform of certain holomorphic mappings.Applied Numerical Mathematics, 51(2–3):289–303, 2004

    María López-Fernández and César Palencia. On the numerical inversion of the laplace transform of certain holomorphic mappings.Applied Numerical Mathematics, 51(2–3):289–303, 2004

    2004

  33. [41]

    A spectral order method for inverting sectorial laplace transforms.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 44(3):1332–1350, 2006

    María López-Fernández, César Palencia, and Achim Schädle. A spectral order method for inverting sectorial laplace transforms.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 44(3):1332–1350, 2006

    2006

  34. [42]

    Guang Hao Low and Isaac L. Chuang. Optimal hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing.Physical Review Letters, 118:010501, 2017

    2017

  35. [43]

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

    2019

  36. [44]

    Quantum circuits for partial differential equations in fourier space.Physical Review Research, 7:043326, 2025

    Michael Lubasch, Yuta Kikuchi, Lewis Wright, and Conor Mc Keever. Quantum circuits for partial differential equations in fourier space.Physical Review Research, 7:043326, 2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    Iterative methods for shifted positive definite linear systems and time discretization of the heat equation.ANZIAM Journal, 53:134–155, 2011

    William McLean and Vidar Thomée. Iterative methods for shifted positive definite linear systems and time discretization of the heat equation.ANZIAM Journal, 53:134–155, 2011

    2011

  38. [46]

    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

    2016

  39. [47]

    Peter Oswald.Multilevel Finite Element Approximation: Theory and Applications. B. G. Teubner, Stuttgart, 1994. 29

    1994

  40. [48]

    Quantum algorithms for estimating physical quantities using block-encodings

    Patrick Rall. Quantum algorithms for estimating physical quantities using block-encodings. Physical Review A, 102:022408, 2020

    2020

  41. [49]

    A parallel method for time-discretization of parabolic problems based on contour integral representation and quadrature.Mathematics of Computation, 69(229):177–195, 2000

    Dongwoo Sheen, Ian Sloan, and Vidar Thomée. A parallel method for time-discretization of parabolic problems based on contour integral representation and quadrature.Mathematics of Computation, 69(229):177–195, 2000

    2000

  42. [50]

    A parallel method for time discretization of parabolic equations based on laplace transformation and quadrature.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 23(2):269–299, 2003

    Dongwoo Sheen, Ian H Sloan, and Vidar Thomée. A parallel method for time discretization of parabolic equations based on laplace transformation and quadrature.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 23(2):269–299, 2003

    2003

  43. [51]

    Piecewise linear (pre-)wavelets on non-uniform meshes

    Rob Stevenson. Piecewise linear (pre-)wavelets on non-uniform meshes. In Wolfgang Hackbusch and Gabriel Wittum, editors,Multigrid Methods V, volume 3 ofLecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering, pages 306–319. Springer, 1998

    1998

  44. [52]

    Quantum algorithms based on the block-encoding framework for matrix functions by contour integrals

    Souichi Takahira, Asuka Ohashi, Tomohiro Sogabe, and Tsuyoshi Sasaki Usuda. Quantum algorithms based on the block-encoding framework for matrix functions by contour integrals. Quantum Information and Computation, 22(11–12):965–979, 2022

    2022

  45. [53]

    Springer, Berlin, 2 edition, 2006

    Vidar Thomée.Galerkin Finite Element Methods for Parabolic Problems. Springer, Berlin, 2 edition, 2006

    2006

  46. [54]

    Quantum simulation of non-unitary dynamics via contour-based matrix decomposition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.10267, 2025

    Chao Wang, Huan-Yu Liu, Cheng Xue, Xi-Ning Zhuang, Menghan Dou, Zhao-Yun Chen, and Guo-Ping Guo. Quantum simulation of non-unitary dynamics via contour-based matrix decomposition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.10267, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  47. [55]

    J. A. C. Weideman and Lloyd N. Trefethen. Parabolic and hyperbolic contours for computing the bromwich integral.Mathematics of Computation, 76(259):1341–1356, 2007

    2007

  48. [56]

    First, Rory Johnston, Jeremy Tillay, Skylar Chaney, Matthias Rosenkranz, and Michael Lubasch

    Lewis Wright, Conor Mc Keever, Jeremy T. First, Rory Johnston, Jeremy Tillay, Skylar Chaney, Matthias Rosenkranz, and Michael Lubasch. Noisy intermediate-scale quantum simulation of the one-dimensional wave equation.Physical Review Research, 6:043169, 2024

    2024

  49. [57]

    Iterative methods by space decomposition and subspace correction.SIAM Review, 34(4):581–613, 1992

    Jinchao Xu. Iterative methods by space decomposition and subspace correction.SIAM Review, 34(4):581–613, 1992

    1992

  50. [58]

    Circuit-efficient randomized quantum simulation of non-unitary dynamics with observable-driven and symmetry-aware designs, 2025

    Songqinghao Yang and Jin-Peng Liu. Circuit-efficient randomized quantum simulation of non-unitary dynamics with observable-driven and symmetry-aware designs, 2025

    2025

  51. [59]

    On the multi-level splitting of finite element spaces.Numerische Mathematik, 49:379–412, 1986

    Harry Yserentant. On the multi-level splitting of finite element spaces.Numerische Mathematik, 49:379–412, 1986. A Contour-based representations The same inverse-Laplace quadrature is used in the single-level and multilevel constructions. We usezfor the complex Laplace variabl...

    1986

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.