pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.03407 · v1 · pith:H6XIZN4Unew · submitted 2026-06-02 · 🪐 quant-ph · cs.NA· math.NA

Structure-Preserving Quantum Method of Lines for Evolutionary PDEs with Mixed Boundary Conditions

Yixuan Liang , Jin-Peng Liu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 09:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cs.NAmath.NA
keywords quantum algorithmsmethod of linesevolutionary PDEsmixed boundary conditionsHamiltonian simulationparabolic equationshyperbolic equationsCoons interpolation
0
0 comments X

The pith

A method-of-lines discretization for evolutionary PDEs preserves stability under mixed boundaries by lifting them with Coons interpolation and applying similarity transforms before quantum ODE solution.

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

The paper establishes quantum algorithms for linear second-order evolutionary PDEs, both parabolic and hyperbolic, that incorporate Dirichlet, Neumann, and periodic boundaries plus source terms. Its method-of-lines reduction lifts the boundaries via Coons interpolation and uses boundary-aware spatial discretization so the resulting semi-discrete ODE systems remain stable. For parabolic cases a diagonal similarity transform forces the generator to have a positive semi-definite Hermitian part, after which the system is solved by linear combination of Hamiltonian simulation; hyperbolic cases are recast as first-order systems solved directly by Hamiltonian simulation. Explicit block encodings, circuit constructions, and end-to-end complexity bounds that fold in spatial and quadrature errors are supplied, together with classical numerical checks on convection-diffusion, heat, and Klein-Gordon equations.

Core claim

By lifting boundaries with Coons interpolation and boundary-aware discretization, the semi-discrete systems obtained from the method of lines for parabolic and hyperbolic PDEs are stable; a diagonal similarity transform then guarantees the parabolic generator has a positive semi-definite Hermitian part, allowing solution by the linear combination of Hamiltonian simulation, while hyperbolic problems are rewritten as equivalent first-order systems solved by Hamiltonian simulation, all with explicit quantum circuit realizations and complexity bounds that include discretization and quadrature errors.

What carries the argument

Coons interpolation for boundary lifting combined with a diagonal similarity transform that enforces positive semi-definiteness of the Hermitian part of the semi-discrete generator.

If this is right

  • The resulting quantum algorithms admit explicit block-encoding constructions and circuit implementations.
  • End-to-end complexity bounds are obtained that incorporate both spatial discretization error and quadrature error.
  • The same constructions apply to inhomogeneous heat equations and Klein-Gordon equations with the listed boundary types.
  • Classical numerical experiments confirm that the semi-discrete systems remain stable under the stated discretizations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same lifting and transform steps may extend to time-dependent coefficients provided the resulting generator still satisfies the Hermitian-part condition after each time step.
  • The approach could be combined with existing quantum linear-system solvers when the source term is itself the output of another quantum subroutine.
  • If the stability survives, the method offers a route to quantum simulation of higher-dimensional evolutionary PDEs without auxiliary error-correction overhead for boundary artifacts.

Load-bearing premise

The combination of Coons interpolation and the diagonal similarity transform produces semi-discrete systems whose stability properties survive the quantum encoding without introducing errors that invalidate the claimed complexity bounds.

What would settle it

A quantum simulation of the semi-discrete parabolic system on a simple convection-diffusion problem with mixed boundaries in which the solution norm grows or the observed runtime exceeds the stated complexity bound because of boundary-induced instability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.03407 by Jin-Peng Liu, Yixuan Liang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Validity of similarity transform, Nl = 32 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Validity of similarity transform, Nl = 64 48 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Neumann: midpoint vs ghost-point. 49 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Different kernel functions, R = 50 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p051_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Different kernel functions, R = 100 This example is constructed as a spatiotemporally inseparable case with a non-trigonometric solution. We can find that the kernel g3 performs best most of the time and g2 also has decent performance in this example. But the performance of kernel functions is dependent on the specific problem. When the spatial part of the analytical solution is trigonometric, g1 usually o… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Second-order overall error 52 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p052_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Validity and second-order overall error The error-Nl curves in the log-log plots are all straight lines with the slope close to −2. This agrees well with the derived second-order overall error. Moreover, the decline of errors is stable, which indicates that the algorithm is effective in high-dimensional cases. 8 Discussion In this chapter, we discuss several natural questions and directions for future rese… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Circuit for Lemma 22. |0 m2 ⟩ |0 m1 ⟩ |0 n2 ⟩ |0 n1 ⟩ UB UA UB UA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p064_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Circuit for Lemma 23. Lemma 24 (Linear Combination of Unitaries [6, Lemma 52]). Let A = Ps i=1 ciAi with ci > 0 for all i and Ui ∈ (αi , m, εi)BE(Ai). Define V as an operator satisfying V |0⟩ := √ 1 α Ps i=1 √ ciαi |i⟩ where α := Ps i=1 ciαi and U := P i |i⟩⟨i| ⊗ Ui. Then V †UV ∈ (α, m + ⌈log s⌉, X i ciεi)BE(A). Lemma 25. Let ψ and φ be two non-zero vectors. Then [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p064_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We give detailed analysis and circuit design of structure-preserving quantum algorithms for second-order linear evolutionary PDEs, including parabolic equations and hyperbolic equations with mixed Dirichlet, Neumann, and periodic boundary conditions and source terms. While prior quantum algorithms usually neglect the stability problem from the PDE-to-ODE reduction, our method-of-lines approach investigates the boundary lifting via Coons interpolation and boundary-aware discretization, so that the resulting semi-discrete systems are stable and compatible with efficient quantum ODE primitives. For the parabolic problem, we use a diagonal similarity transform to ensure the semi-discrete generator must have a positive semi-definite Hermitian part, and then solve the resulting ODE system by the optimal linear combination of Hamiltonian simulation (LCHS). For the hyperbolic problem, we rewrite the semi-discrete equation as an equivalent first-order system and solve it by Hamiltonian simulation. We implement our quantum algorithms with explicit block-encoding constructions and circuit implementations, as well as demonstrating the end-to-end complexity bounds together with spatial and quadrature error estimates. We conduct classical numerical experiments on the convection-diffusion equation, inhomogeneous heat equation, and Klein-Gordon equation to validate our structure-preserving analysis and algorithmic constructions.

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

0 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper develops a method-of-lines framework for quantum simulation of linear second-order evolutionary PDEs (parabolic and hyperbolic) subject to mixed Dirichlet/Neumann/periodic boundary conditions and source terms. Boundary lifting is performed via Coons interpolation combined with boundary-aware spatial discretization to produce stable semi-discrete ODE systems; a diagonal similarity transform is applied in the parabolic case to guarantee that the generator has positive semi-definite Hermitian part, after which the system is solved by linear combination of Hamiltonian simulation (LCHS). Hyperbolic problems are recast as equivalent first-order systems solved by standard Hamiltonian simulation. Explicit block-encoding constructions, circuit implementations, end-to-end complexity bounds, spatial/quadrature error estimates, and classical numerical experiments on the convection-diffusion, inhomogeneous heat, and Klein-Gordon equations are reported.

Significance. If the stability properties and error bounds survive the quantum encoding step, the work supplies a missing rigorous link between classical structure-preserving discretizations and quantum ODE primitives, addressing a common limitation in earlier quantum PDE solvers. The explicit constructions and classical validation experiments constitute concrete strengths that would make the contribution useful to the quantum algorithms community.

minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract is information-dense; a short enumerated list of the main technical contributions would improve readability for readers scanning the paper.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed summary of our manuscript and the positive assessment of its significance. The recommendation is listed as 'uncertain,' but the report contains no specific major comments or points requiring clarification. We therefore have no individual comments to address point-by-point. If the referee has additional concerns not captured in this report, we would be pleased to respond to them in a revised version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper presents a pipeline of classical method-of-lines discretization (Coons interpolation for boundary lifting, boundary-aware schemes, diagonal similarity transform for parabolic case to enforce positive semi-definite Hermitian part, first-order rewriting for hyperbolic case) followed by application of standard quantum primitives (LCHS, Hamiltonian simulation, block encodings). The abstract and context provide no equations or steps where a claimed prediction or result reduces by construction to a fitted input, self-definition, or load-bearing self-citation chain. Stability and complexity claims rest on the classical analysis and external quantum primitives, with no internal reduction exhibited. This is the common case of an independent derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; all claims are stated at the level of algorithmic construction and error analysis without introducing new postulated objects or fitted constants.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5736 in / 1307 out tokens · 31323 ms · 2026-06-28T09:44:35.065046+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations

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

    2009

  2. [2]

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

    Yudong Cao, Anmer Daskin, Steven Frankel, and Sabre Kais. Quantum algorithm and circuit design solving the Poisson equation.New Journal of Physics, 15:013021, 2013

    2013

  3. [3]

    Quantum algorithms and the finite element method.Physical Review A, 93(3):032324, 2016

    Ashley Montanaro and Sam Pallister. Quantum algorithms and the finite element method.Physical Review A, 93(3):032324, 2016

    2016

  4. [4]

    Childs, Jin-Peng Liu, and Aaron Ostrander

    Andrew M. Childs, Jin-Peng Liu, and Aaron Ostrander. High-precision quantum algorithms for partial differ- ential equations.Quantum, 5:574, 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    Guang Hao Low and Isaac L. Chuang. Optimal Hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing.Physical Review Letters, 118(1):010501, 2017

    2017

  6. [6]

    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. InProceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 193–204, 2019

    2019

  7. [7]

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

    2023

  8. [8]

    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

  9. [9]

    Guang Hao Low and Rolando D. Somma. Optimal quantum simulation of linear non-unitary dynamics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.19238, 8 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Quantum simulation of partial differential equations via Schrodingerisation

    Shi Jin, Nana Liu, and Yue Yu. Quantum simulation of partial differential equations via Schrodingerisation. Physical Review Letters, 133(23):230602, 2024

    2024

  11. [11]

    Quantum simulation of partial differential equations via Schrodingerisation: technical details.Physical Review A, 108(3):032603, 2023

    Shi Jin, Nana Liu, and Yue Yu. Quantum simulation of partial differential equations via Schrodingerisation: technical details.Physical Review A, 108(3):032603, 2023

    2023

  12. [12]

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

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

    2024

  13. [13]

    Quantum circuits for the heat equation with physical boundary conditions via Schrodingerization.Journal of Computational Physics, 538:114138, 2025

    Shi Jin, Nana Liu, and Yue Yu. Quantum circuits for the heat equation with physical boundary conditions via Schrodingerization.Journal of Computational Physics, 538:114138, 2025. 55

    2025

  14. [14]

    Quantum simulation of Maxwell’s equations via Schrodingerisation

    Chuwen Ma, Shi Jin, and Nana Liu. Quantum simulation of Maxwell’s equations via Schrodingerisation. ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 58(5):1853–1879, 2024

    2024

  15. [15]

    Chuwen Ma, Shi Jin, and Nana Liu. Schrodingerization based quantum circuits for Maxwell’s equation with perfect electric conductor boundary conditions and time-dependent source terms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.10999, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    On Schrodingerization-based quantum algorithms for linear dynamical systems with inhomogeneous terms.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 63(4):1861–1885, 2025

    Shi Jin, Nana Liu, and Chuwen Ma. On Schrodingerization-based quantum algorithms for linear dynamical systems with inhomogeneous terms.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 63(4):1861–1885, 2025

    2025

  17. [17]

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

    2014

  18. [18]

    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(3):1057–1081, 2017

    2017

  19. [19]

    Childs and Jin-Peng Liu

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

    2020

  20. [20]

    Berry and Pedro C

    Dominic W. Berry and Pedro C. S. Costa. Quantum algorithm for time-dependent differential equations using Dyson series.Quantum, 8:1369, 2024

    2024

  21. [21]

    Explicit block encodings of boundary value problems for many-body elliptic operators.Quantum, 9:1764, 2025

    Tyler Kharazi, Ahmad M Alkadri, Jin-Peng Liu, Kranthi K Mandadapu, and K Birgitta Whaley. Explicit block encodings of boundary value problems for many-body elliptic operators.Quantum, 9:1764, 2025

    2025

  22. [22]

    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

  23. [23]

    Quantum differential equation solvers: Limitations and fast-forwarding.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 406(8):189, 2025

    Dong An, Jin-Peng Liu, Daochen Wang, and Qi Zhao. Quantum differential equation solvers: Limitations and fast-forwarding.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 406(8):189, 2025

    2025

  24. [24]

    Circuit-efficient randomized quantum simulation of non-unitary dynamics with observable-driven and symmetry-aware designs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.08030, 2025

    Songqinghao Yang and Jin-Peng Liu. Circuit-efficient randomized quantum simulation of non-unitary dynamics with observable-driven and symmetry-aware designs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.08030, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Quantum algorithm for partial differential equations of nonconservative systems with spatially varying parameters.Physical Review Applied, 23(1):014063, 2025

    Yuki Sato, Hiroyuki Tezuka, Ruho Kondo, and Naoki Yamamoto. Quantum algorithm for partial differential equations of nonconservative systems with spatially varying parameters.Physical Review Applied, 23(1):014063, 2025

    2025

  26. [26]

    Infinite-dimensional extension of the linear combination of Hamiltonian simulation: Theorems and applications.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19688, 2025

    Rui Lu, Hao-En Li, Zicheng Liu, and Jin-Peng Liu. Infinite-dimensional extension of the linear combination of Hamiltonian simulation: Theorems and applications.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19688, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Toward end-to-end quantum simulation of rapidly distorted turbulence.Journal of Computational Physics, page 114888, 2026

    Zhaoyuan Meng, Leyu Chen, Jin-Peng Liu, and Guowei He. Toward end-to-end quantum simulation of rapidly distorted turbulence.Journal of Computational Physics, page 114888, 2026

    2026

  28. [28]

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

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

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Quantum algorithm for simulating the wave equation

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

    2019

  30. [30]

    Hamiltonian simulation for hyperbolic partial differential equations by scalable quantum circuits.Physical Review Research, 6(3):033246, 2024

    Yuki Sato, Ruho Kondo, Ikko Hamamura, Tamiya Onodera, and Naoki Yamamoto. Hamiltonian simulation for hyperbolic partial differential equations by scalable quantum circuits.Physical Review Research, 6(3):033246, 2024. 56

    2024

  31. [31]

    Quantum algorithm for solving the advection equation using Hamiltonian simulations.Physical Review A, 110(1):012430, 2024

    Yuki Sato, Hiroyuki Tezuka, Ruho Kondo, and Naoki Yamamoto. Quantum algorithm for solving the advection equation using Hamiltonian simulations.Physical Review A, 110(1):012430, 2024

    2024

  32. [32]

    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 nonlinear differential equations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(35):e2026805118, 2021

    2021

  33. [33]

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

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

    2023

  34. [34]

    Efficient quantum algorithm for nonlinear reaction–diffusion equations and energy estimation.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 404(2):963–1020, 2023

    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.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 404(2):963–1020, 2023

    2023

  35. [35]

    Pedro C. S. Costa, Philipp Schleich, Mauro E. S. Morales, and Dominic W. Berry. Further improving quan- tum algorithms for nonlinear differential equations via higher-order methods and rescaling.npj Quantum Information, 11(1), 2025

    2025

  36. [36]

    Quantum algorithms for nonlinear dynamics: Revisiting Carleman linearization with no dissipative conditions.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 47(2):A943– A970, 2025

    Hsuan-Cheng Wu, Jingyao Wang, and Xiantao Li. Quantum algorithms for nonlinear dynamics: Revisiting Carleman linearization with no dissipative conditions.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 47(2):A943– A970, 2025

    2025

  37. [37]

    Quantum algorithms for general nonlinear dynamics based on the Carleman embedding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.07155, 2025

    David Jennings, Kamil Korzekwa, Matteo Lostaglio, Andrew T Sornborger, Yigit Subasi, and Guoming Wang. Quantum algorithms for general nonlinear dynamics based on the Carleman embedding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.07155, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Efficient quantum simulation for nonlinear stochastic differential equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.12398, 2026

    Xiangyu Li, Ahmet Burak Catli, Ho Kiat Lim, Matthew Pocrnic, Dong An, Jin-Peng Liu, and Nathan Wiebe. Efficient quantum simulation for nonlinear stochastic differential equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.12398, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    Quantum Algorithms for Nonlinear Differential Equations via Pivot-Shifted Carleman Linearization

    Ke Wang, Zikang Jia, Shravan Veerapaneni, and Zhiyan Ding. Quantum algorithms for nonlinear differential equations via pivot-shifted Carleman linearization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.20071, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    Quantum algorithm for nonlinear differential equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.06571, 2020

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

    work page arXiv 2011

  41. [41]

    Quantum homotopy perturbation method for nonlinear dissi- pative ordinary differential equations.New Journal of Physics, 23(12):123035, 2021

    Cheng Xue, Yu-Chun Wu, and Guo-Ping Guo. Quantum homotopy perturbation method for nonlinear dissi- pative ordinary differential equations.New Journal of Physics, 23(12):123035, 2021

    2021

  42. [42]

    HAM-Schrodingerisation: a generic framework of quantum simulation for any nonlinear PDEs

    Shijun Liao. HAM-Schrodingerisation: a generic framework of quantum simulation for any nonlinear PDEs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15821, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Quantum homotopy analysis method with quantum-compatible linearization for nonlinear partial differential equations.Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 68:104702, 2025

    Cheng Xue, Xiao-Fan Xu, Xi-Ning Zhuang, Tai-Ping Sun, Yun-Jie Wang, Ming-Yang Tan, Chuang-Chao Ye, Huan-Yu Liu, Yu-Chun Wu, Zhao-Yun Chen, and Guo-Ping Guo. Quantum homotopy analysis method with quantum-compatible linearization for nonlinear partial differential equations.Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 68:104702, 2025

    2025

  44. [44]

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

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

    2020

  45. [45]

    Quantum algorithms for nonlinear partial differential equations.Chinese Annals of Mathematics, Series B, 2024

    Shi Jin and Nana Liu. Quantum algorithms for nonlinear partial differential equations.Chinese Annals of Mathematics, Series B, 2024

    2024

  46. [46]

    Time complexity analysis of quantum algorithms via linear representations for nonlinear ODEs and PDEs.Journal of Computational Physics, 2023

    Shi Jin and Nana Liu. Time complexity analysis of quantum algorithms via linear representations for nonlinear ODEs and PDEs.Journal of Computational Physics, 2023. 57

    2023

  47. [47]

    Quantum Koopman Algorithms

    David Jennings, Kamil Korzekwa, Matteo Lostaglio, and Guoming Wang. Quantum Koopman algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.19054, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    Quantum algorithms for Young measures: applications to nonlinear partial differential equations

    Shi Jin, Nana Liu, Maria Lukacova-Medvidova, and Yuhuan Yuan. Quantum algorithms for Young measures: applications to nonlinear partial differential equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.11825, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  49. [49]

    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. A Proof of Theorem 3, Theorem 4 and Theorem 12 Proof of Theorem 3.Letu 1, u2 be two solutions and setv=u 1 −u 2. We only need to provev= 0. By linearity, we know thatvsatisfies the equatio...

    2012

  50. [50]

    Then we verify the conditions thatv 2 meets. For the inhomogeneous term and initial value, we have ∂v2 ∂t =Lv 1 + ˆf+   X ∅̸=B⊆S2 (−1)|B|Interp′ B(x, t)   t =Lv 2 − L   X ∅̸=B⊆S2 (−1)|B|Interp′ B(x, t)   + ˆf+   X ∅̸=B⊆S2 (−1)|B|Interp′ B(x, t)   t =Lv 2 + ˜f(x, t), 59 v2(x,0) =v 1(x,0) + X ∅̸=B⊆S2 (−1)|B|Interp′ B(x,0) = ˜u0(x). ForlinS 1, si...