Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 39 references

Quantum simulation of elastic wave equations via Schr\"odingerisation

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that Schrödingerisation maps both velocity-stress and displacement forms of the elastic wave equations into Hamiltonian systems, yielding quantum gate complexities that grow polynomially in the spatial dimension while…

desk verdict Schrödingerisation applied to elastic wave equations with sound PDE derivations, but the complexity theorems have a real p-domain scaling gap and omit an exponentially small recovery probability; worth refereeing with major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18711 v1 pith:INLJINWL submitted 2025-05-24 quant-ph math.QA

Shi Jin , Chundan Zhang This is my paper
classification quant-phmath.QA
keywords elasticwaveequationsSchrödingerisationquantumsimulationHamiltonianvelocity-stressstaggeredgridspectralmethodgatecomplexity
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

The paper claims that the Schrödingerisation method—a warped phase transformation that embeds a linear PDE into one higher dimension and yields unitary evolution—can be applied to the elastic wave equations in two standard formulations, and that the resulting quantum algorithms have gate complexity scaling polynomially in the allowed error, the evolution time, and the logarithm of the spatial dimension. For the velocity-stress equations in isotropic media, the symmetric matrix form with spectral discretization and the variable-coefficient staggered-grid form both become Hamiltonian systems after Schrödingerisation, with gate counts of $O((\log(d^2+3d)+(d/r)\log(1/\epsilon))\epsilon^{-1}T)$ and $O((\log(d^2+3d)+(d/2)\log(1/\epsilon))\epsilon^{-3/2}T)$. For the displacement equation, the same treatment with spectral and central-difference discretizations gives analogous bounds, and a criterion (Theorem 5.3) selects the auxiliary $p$-domain size. Against the classical cost $O(\epsilon^{-(d/r+1)}T^2)$, these bounds imply exponential quantum advantage in the spatial dimension $d$ whenever the solution is smooth and $T$ is $O(1)$. If the theorems hold, high-dimensional elastic wave simulation—relevant to seismic imaging and materials science—becomes a candidate for practical quantum advantage.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Schrödingerisation (warped phase) transformation $v=e^{-|p|}u$, which maps a linear PDE $du/dt=(H_1+iH_2)u$ into $dv/dt=-H_1\partial_p v+iH_2 v$, a one-dimension-higher Schrödinger-type equation. Discretizing $p$ by the Fourier spectral method and changing to Fourier coefficients gives a Hamiltonian system $d/dt\,c=-i(H_1\otimes D_p-H_2\otimes I)c$, suitable for Hamiltonian simulation with quantum signal processing; the original solution is recovered at $p^*\ge\max\{\lambda_{\max}(H_1)T,0\}$ or by integration over $p$. The decomposition into Hermitian $H_1$ and anti-Hermitian $iH_2$ is what makes the transformation possible, and the sparsity of $H_1,H_2$ sets the gate complexity through the Low–Chuang query bound.

What would settle it

For the spectral-discretized displacement equation, compute the maximum eigenvalue of $H_1$ and the norm of the Schrödingerised Hamiltonian $H_s$ with $M=O(\epsilon^{-1/r})$ spatial grid points, the $p$-domain length set to the $p_*$ of Theorem 5.3, and $N=O(\epsilon^{-1})$ Fourier points in $p$; if $\|H_s\|_{\max}$ grows faster than $O(\epsilon^{-1})$, or the numerical error does not reach $O(\epsilon)$, then the gate bound in Theorem 5.1 is incomplete.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the non-unitary dynamics of elastic waves, including external forcing and spatially varying density and Lamé parameters, are exactly convertible into unitary Schrödinger-type evolution through the warped phase transformation $v=e^{-|p|}u$ and a discrete Fourier transform in the auxiliary variable $p$. This yields a Hamiltonian system $H=-i(H_1\otimes D_p-H_2\otimes I)$ whose sparsity is inherited from the original PDE, allowing Hamiltonian simulation via quantum signal processing. The paper proves gate-complexity bounds for four discretizations: the symmetric matrix form of the velocity-stress equation with spectral method (Theorem 4.1), the staggered-grid velocity-stress formulation for variable coefficients (Theorem 4.2), the displacement-equation hyperbolic system with spectral method (Theorem 5.1), and with central differences (Theorem 5.2). It also establishes, in Theorem 5.3, that the recovery point $p_*$ required to read out the solution grows as $O(\epsilon^{-1/r})$ for the spectral method and $O(\epsilon^{-1/2})$ for central differences, meaning the spectral method needs a larger auxiliary $p$-domain. The stated complexity is polynomial in $1/\epsilon$, $T$, and $\log d$, versus classical cost exponential in $d$, which the authors interpret as exponential quantum advantage in spatial dimension.

Load-bearing premise

The complexity proofs for the displacement equation assume a fixed auxiliary $p$-domain with $N=O(1/\epsilon)$ Fourier points, while Theorem 5.3 requires the recovery point $p_*$ to grow as $(1/\epsilon)^{1/r}$ or $(1/\epsilon)^{1/2}$; if the $p$-domain must expand to contain $p_*$, the resolution count and the norm estimate $\|H_s\|_{\max}=O(1/\epsilon)$ used in Theorems 5.1 and 5.2 need reworking.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For smooth solutions and evolution time $T\sim O(1)$, the quantum gate count grows as $\log d$ while classical cost grows as $\epsilon^{-(d/r+1)}T^2$, giving exponential quantum advantage in spatial dimension $d$.
  • Variable medium parameters (position-dependent density and Lamé coefficients) are handled by the staggered-grid Schrödingerisation at cost $O(\epsilon^{-3/2}T)$, enabling heterogeneous media simulation.
  • The displacement-equation formulation provides a practical rule for choosing the auxiliary $p$-domain: the recovery point scales as $\epsilon^{-1/r}$ (spectral) or $\epsilon^{-1/2}$ (central difference), and the numerical experiments confirm that both one-point and integral recovery match classical solutions.
  • External source terms in the symmetric matrix form are incorporated without spoiling unitarity via the homogeneous embedding $r=\epsilon\mathbf{1}$, so the Hamiltonian simulation framework extends to problems with forcing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The exponential-in-$d$ advantage relies on $T$ being $O(1)$: for long-time simulations with $T\sim\epsilon^{-\alpha}$, the quantum cost grows linearly in $T$ while the classical cost grows quadratically in $T$, so the advantage in dimension persists but the total speedup is moderated; the paper does not analyze this long-time regime.
  • Theorem 5.3's growth of $p_*$ may force the auxiliary $p$-domain length to grow with $1/\epsilon$, which could invalidate the fixed $N=O(\epsilon^{-1})$ Fourier lattice assumed in Theorems 5.1 and 5.2; a consistency check connecting $p_*$, domain length, and $N$ would settle whether the stated displacement-equation complexity is complete.
  • A natural testable extension is to apply the same Schrödingerisation construction to viscoelastic or anisotropic elastic wave equations, where the dispersion matrix $L(x,k)$ has different algebraic structure and the $H_1/H_2$ decomposition may change sparsity and the resulting gate counts.
  • The numerical experiments validate correctness on classical hardware but not the resource bounds; a resource estimate in logical qubits and T-gates for a concrete three-dimensional seismic problem would be needed to judge practical relevance.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper develops quantum simulation algorithms for elastic wave equations using the Schrödingerisation framework of Jin, Liu, and Yu. It treats two formulations: the symmetric matrix form (SMF) of the velocity–stress equations in homogeneous media with external sources, using Fourier spectral discretization in space; and variable-coefficient problems, using a staggered-grid discretization of the velocity–stress equations and spectral or central-difference discretizations of a first-order hyperbolic system for the displacement. The main results are Hamiltonian simulation gate-complexity bounds (Theorems 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2) that scale polynomially in 1/ε and T and logarithmically in the spatial dimension d, and a recovery-point estimate (Theorem 5.3) for the auxiliary variable p. Classical numerical experiments in one and two dimensions compare the Schrödingerised solutions with standard finite-difference and spectral solutions and show good agreement.

Significance. Schrödingerisation-based quantum algorithms for elastic waves are a natural and potentially important application area, and the paper is among the first to give explicit complexity theorems for both velocity–stress and displacement formulations, including source terms and variable coefficients. The numerical verification of the recovery procedure is a clear strength, and the structural derivations (warped-phase transformation, homogenization of sources, Hamiltonian splitting) follow the established framework. If the complexity theorems can be repaired, the claimed exponential advantage in dimension for fixed final time is significant for geophysical and materials-science applications. However, the proofs currently contain a load-bearing gap in the treatment of the auxiliary p-domain, and the central-difference discretization as written is not a consistent first-derivative approximation; these issues must be resolved before the complexity claims can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2, Theorems 4.2, 5.1, 5.2] The recovery condition (3.10) requires p* ≥ max_n λ_n(H1) T, and Theorem 5.3 gives p*_s = O(ε^{-1/r}) and p*_c = O(ε^{-1/2}) because ||H1||max = O(M). The complexity proofs instead set N = O(ε^{-1}) (Eqs. (4.27) and (5.14)) and estimate ||H_s||max using ||D_p||max = O(N), which presupposes the p-domain half-length L is O(1). Once L must grow to O(p*) to contain the wave packet, the Fourier discretization of the initial profile e^{-|p|} requires the cutoff N/L = O(ε^{-1}), i.e., N = O(ε^{-1} L), and ||D_p||max = N/(2L) = O(ε^{-1}). This gives N = O(ε^{-(1+1/r)}) in Theorem 5.1 and N = O(ε^{-3/2}) in Theorems 4.2 and 5.2. The ε-exponents in the query-complexity factors are unchanged, but the qubit counts m_H and hence the stated gate complexities are missing the corresponding log(1/ε) terms, and the proof of the norm bound in Theorem 4.2 is not valid as written. The bookkeeping needs to be redone with L and N coupled to p*.
  2. [§5.2, Eq. (5.15)] The matrix D defined in (5.15) is real symmetric (for periodic indexing it is essentially S + S^T) and does not approximate the first-derivative operator ∂_x appearing in the hyperbolic system (2.17). A standard second-order central difference for -i∂_x with periodic boundary conditions has the form (1/(2h))(-i)(S - S^T), with eigenvalues (1/h) sin(2πk/M); the matrix in (5.15) has eigenvalues 2 cos(2πk/M) and, when substituted into L_c in (5.16), makes the discretized operator skew-Hermitian in the constant-coefficient case, which is inconsistent with the H1/H2 split in (5.19) and with the eigenvalue estimate (5.26). The central-difference discretization, Theorem 5.2, and the p*_c estimate in Theorem 5.3 therefore need to be re-derived with the correct difference operator, or the definition of D needs to be clarified and justified.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3 title] The abstract and Section 3 title contain typos: 'expore', 'demontrate', 'dimensin', 'methed', and 'wraped'; these should be corrected.
  2. [§2.1.2 and §3] The symbol p is used both for the pressure variable in (2.14) and for the auxiliary Schrödingerisation variable in Section 3; this is confusing and should be disambiguated.
  3. [Remark 4.5] Remark 4.5 refers to 'Eqs. (2.17)' when discussing the classical complexity of the staggered-grid velocity–stress equations; it should refer to (2.6)/(4.20).
  4. [Theorems 4.1 and 5.1] In the proofs of Theorems 4.1 and 5.1, the displayed qubit count contains an additional +log(1/ε) term that is dropped in the theorem statement; the two forms should be made consistent.
  5. [Theorem 5.3] The estimates (5.22)–(5.23) omit the factor T (or should state the assumption T = O(1)); also, 'Hermite matrix' in the proof should be 'Hermitian matrix'.
  6. [Theorems 4.1 and 4.2] The sparsity counts s = 3 and s = 6 appear to count only the spatial operator and not the tensor-product structure with D_p; since only constant factors are affected, this should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the elastic-wave reductions and complexity theorems are self-contained, with prior work used as a framework, not as a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce any claimed prediction to its own inputs. The Schrödingerisation framework itself is quoted from the authors' earlier work (JLY23, JLM24a, JLM24b), but it is a parameter-free mathematical method with stated assumptions and is applied here to a new target: elastic wave equations in SMF, staggered-grid, and hyperbolic forms. The elastic-wave-specific transformations are derived from classical external formulations (SYJ20 for SMF, RPK96 and JL06 for the hyperbolic system, Vir86 and Ran89 for staggered grids), not from the complexity claims. The gate-complexity theorems (4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2) rely on the external Hamiltonian-simulation bound of Low and Chuang (Lemma 3.1, LC17) and on standard spectral and central-difference accuracy estimates; the grid sizes M and N are chosen from the target accuracy epsilon, not fitted to the final complexity statements. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force a particular form. The paper explicitly flags its scope limitations—periodic boundary conditions and the open issue for non-periodic boundaries in Section 2.1.2—which are restrictions on applicability, not circular reasoning. The only substantive concern one might raise is an internal bookkeeping issue about whether the recovery point p* grows with epsilon^{-1/r} or epsilon^{-1/2} and whether the p-domain length must grow accordingly; if valid, that is a correctness or consistency defect in the complexity estimates, not a case where a conclusion is assumed as an input. Because the derivation chain rests on explicit transformations and external complexity bounds, there is no circular step, and a score of 0 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Schrödingerisation transformation from the authors' prior work, on periodicity and smoothness assumptions, and on the Low-Chuang Hamiltonian simulation bound. The paper introduces no fitted physical parameters; the free items are computational scales (c, p*, p-domain) and the auxiliary dimension p.

free parameters (3)
  • source homogenization scale c = c ~ ||f_h||∞
    Introduced in Eq. (4.11) to eliminate inhomogeneous source terms; affects H1 and H2 but not the physics of the wave equation.
  • recovery point p* = e.g. 3.203, 6.759, 4.306 in experiments
    Chosen to satisfy p* >= max eigenvalue of H1 times T; required for one-point recovery, and its scaling with epsilon is the subject of Theorem 5.3.
  • p-domain half-length L = not fixed; e.g. [-4.2,5], [-3π,3π]
    Domain of the auxiliary variable p; the complexity proofs treat it implicitly while Theorem 5.3 implies it must grow to contain p*.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Periodic boundary conditions and initial-value formulation suffice for the elastic wave systems.
    Stated in Section 1 ('We only consider periodic boundary conditions') and Section 2.1.2 ('valid only for initial value problems or period boundary conditions'). Real seismic applications need absorbing or reflecting boundaries, which are deferred.
  • domain assumption Solution smoothness w ∈ H^r with r >= 2, so the spectral spatial error is O(M^{-r}).
    Used in Theorems 4.1 and 5.1 to set M = O(epsilon^{-1/r}).
  • domain assumption e^{-|p|} is C^0 but not C^1, so Fourier discretization in p gives N = O(epsilon^{-1}).
    Used in the complexity proofs; this ignores possible growth of the p-domain length L.
  • standard math Low-Chuang optimal Hamiltonian simulation query complexity (Lemma 3.1).
    External bound from [LC17], applied to the Schrödingerised Hamiltonian.
  • standard math Fourier spectral derivative matrices P_mu = Phi D_mu Phi^{-1} diagonalize as D_mu.
    Standard spectral method; used throughout Sections 4 and 5.
invented entities (1)
  • Auxiliary dimension p (warped phase variable)
    purpose: Lifts the PDE to one higher dimension so the evolution becomes unitary after Fourier transform, enabling Hamiltonian simulation.
    Mathematical construction from Schrödingerisation; no external falsifiable handle. Its correctness is tested indirectly by recovery of the original solution in numerical experiments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum simulation of elastic wave equations via Schr\"odingerisation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/INLJINWL

@misc{pith2026250518711,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum simulation of elastic wave equations via Schr\"odingerisation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/INLJINWL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18711}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper we study quantum simulation algorithms on the elastic wave equations using the Schr\"odingerisation method. The Schr\"odingerisation method transforms any linear PDEs into a system of Schr\"odinger-type PDEs -with unitary evolution-using the warped phase transformation that maps the equations in one higher dimension. This makes them suitable for quantum simulations. We expore the application in two forms of the elastic wave equations. For the velocity-stress equation in isotropic media, we explore the symmetric matrix form under the external forcing via Schr\"odingerisation combined with spectral method. For problems with variable medium parameters, we apply Schr\"odingerisation method based on the staggered grid method to simulate velocity and stress fields, and give the complexity estimates. For the wave displacement equation, we transform it into a hyperbolic system and apply the Schr\"odingerisation method, which is then discretized by the spectral method and central difference scheme. Details of the quantum algorithms will be provided, along with the complexity analysis which demontrate exponential quantum advantage in space dimensin over the classical algorithms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18711 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Velocity and stress fields under the constant externa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Result at T = 1 with periodic boundary condition. On the left are the numerical solutions obtained by staggered grid method, in the middle and right are the cross-section solutions at x ∗ = 5 and y ∗ = 5. The top two rows present the velocity field, and the bottom three rows present the stress field. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results of the hyperbolic system at T = 1 using the Schr¨odingerisation with the spectral method. The first row: using the first row parameters in Tab. 1 ; The second row: using the second parameters in Tab. 1. 6.3.2 Quantum simulation with central difference method The central difference method has lower accuracy than the spectral method in space, so we set Nx = 26 for numerical tests. In this part, we use the same… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results of the hyperbolic system at T = 1 using the Schr¨odingerisation with the central difference method. The first row: using the first row parameters in Tab. 1 ; The second row: using the second parameters in Tab. 1. References [ALL23] Dong An, Jin-Peng Liu, and Li…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Linear combination of hamiltonian simulation for non-unitary dynamics with optimal state preparation cost

    Dong An, Jin-Peng Liu, and Lin Lin. Linear combination of hamiltonian simulation for non-unitary dynamics with optimal state preparation cost. Physical review letters , 131 15:150603, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Quantitative seismology

    Keiiti Aki and Paul G Richards. Quantitative seismology . 2002

    work page 2002

  3. [3]

    An introduction to the theory of seismology

    Keith Edward Bullen and Bruce A Bolt. An introduction to the theory of seismology . Cambridge university press, 1985

    work page 1985

  4. [4]

    Dominic W. Berry. High-order quantum algorithm for solving linear differential equations. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , 47, 2010

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Keating , and Andreas Fichtner

    Cyrill B \"o sch , Malte Schade , Giacomo Aloisi , Scott D. Keating , and Andreas Fichtner . Quantum Wave Simulation with Sources and Loss Functions . arXiv e-prints , page arXiv:2411.17630, November 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Quantum simulation for time-dependent hamiltonians -- with applications to non-autonomous ordinary and partial differential equations, 2023

    Yu Cao, Shi Jin, and Nana Liu. Quantum simulation for time-dependent hamiltonians -- with applications to non-autonomous ordinary and partial differential equations, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Pedro C. S. Costa, Stephen Jordan, and Aaron Ostrander. Quantum algorithm for simulating the wave equation. Phys. Rev. A , 99:012323, Jan 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Childs and Jin-Peng Liu

    Andrew M. Childs and Jin-Peng Liu. Quantum spectral methods for differential equations. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 375:1427 -- 1457, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum algorithm and circuit design solving the poisson equation

    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(1):013021, jan 2013

    2013

  2. [10]

    Frozen gaussian approximation for 3d seismic tomography

    Lihui Chai, Ping Tong, and Xu Yang. Frozen gaussian approximation for 3d seismic tomography. Inverse Problems , 34(5):055004, mar 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    Fillion-Gourdeau and E

    F. Fillion-Gourdeau and E. Lorin. Simple digital quantum algorithm for symmetric first-order linear hyperbolic systems. Numerical Algorithms , 82(3):1009--1045, Nov 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Quantum simulation of a class of highly-oscillatory transport equations via schr\"odingerisation, 2025

    Anjiao Gu and Shi Jin. Quantum simulation of a class of highly-oscillatory transport equations via schr\"odingerisation, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Quantum algorithms for multiscale partial differential equations

    Junpeng Hu, Shi Jin, and Lei Zhang. Quantum algorithms for multiscale partial differential equations. Multiscale Modeling & Simulation , 22(3):1030--1067, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    A hamiltonian-preserving scheme for high frequency elastic waves in heterogeneous media

    Shi Jin and Xiaomei Liao. A hamiltonian-preserving scheme for high frequency elastic waves in heterogeneous media. Journal of Hyperbolic Differential Equations , 3(04):741--777, 2006

    2006

  7. [15]

    Analog quantum simulation of partial differential equations

    Shi Jin and Nana Liu. Analog quantum simulation of partial differential equations. Quantum Science and Technology , 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Quantum simulation of discrete linear dynamical systems and simple iterative methods in linear algebra via schrodingerisation, 04 2023

    Shi Jin and Nana Liu. Quantum simulation of discrete linear dynamical systems and simple iterative methods in linear algebra via schrodingerisation, 04 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Quantum simulation for partial differential equations with physical boundary or interface conditions

    Shi Jin, Xiantao Li, Nana Liu, and Yue Yu. Quantum simulation for partial differential equations with physical boundary or interface conditions. Journal of Computational Physics , 498:112707, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Quantum simulation for quantum dynamics with artificial boundary conditions

    Shi Jin, Xiantao Li, Nana Liu, and Yue Yu. Quantum simulation for quantum dynamics with artificial boundary conditions. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , 46(4):B403--B421, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    On schr " odingerization based quantum algorithms for linear dynamical systems with inhomogeneous terms

    Shi Jin, Nana Liu, and Chuwen Ma. On schr " odingerization based quantum algorithms for linear dynamical systems with inhomogeneous terms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14696 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Schr\"odingerisation based computationally stable algorithms for ill-posed problems in partial differential equations, 2024

    Shi Jin, Nana Liu, and Chuwen Ma. Schr\"odingerisation based computationally stable algorithms for ill-posed problems in partial differential equations, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Quantum simulation of maxwell’s equations via schrödingerisation

    Jin, Shi , Liu, Nana , and Ma, Chuwen . Quantum simulation of maxwell’s equations via schrödingerisation. ESAIM: M2AN , 58(5):1853--1879, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Quantum algorithms for stochastic differential equations: A schr\"odingerisation approach, 2024

    Shi Jin, Nana Liu, and Wei Wei. Quantum algorithms for stochastic differential equations: A schr\"odingerisation approach, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Quantum simulation of partial differential equations: Applications and detailed analysis

    Shi Jin, Nana Liu, and Yue Yu. Quantum simulation of partial differential equations: Applications and detailed analysis. Physical Review A , 108(3):032603, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Quantum simulation of the fokker-planck equation via schrodingerization

    Shi Jin, Nana Liu, and Yue Yu. Quantum simulation of the fokker-planck equation via schrodingerization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13585 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Guang Hao Low and Isaac L. Chuang. Optimal hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 118:010501, Jan 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    Finite difference methods for ordinary and partial differential equations: steady-state and time-dependent problems

    Randall J LeVeque. Finite difference methods for ordinary and partial differential equations: steady-state and time-dependent problems . SIAM, 2007

    2007

  19. [27]

    Dynamics of an expanding circular fault

    Raul Madariaga. Dynamics of an expanding circular fault. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 66(3):639--666, 1976

    1976

  20. [28]

    A time-stepping technique to solve wave propagation problems using the boundary element method

    Webe Jo \ a o Mansur. A time-stepping technique to solve wave propagation problems using the boundary element method . PhD thesis, University of Southampton, 1983

    1983

  21. [29]

    Accuracy of finite-difference and finite-element modeling of the scalar and elastic wave equations

    Kurt J Marfurt. Accuracy of finite-difference and finite-element modeling of the scalar and elastic wave equations. Geophysics , 49(5):533--549, 1984

    1984

  22. [30]

    C. L. M. H. Navier. Mémoire sur les lois de l'équilibre et du mouvement des corps solides élastiques. Mémoires de l'Académie des Sciences de l'Institut de France , 7:375--393, 1827

  23. [31]

    Approximate quantum fourier transform with o(n log(n)) t gates

    Yunseong Nam, Yuan Su, and Dmitri Maslov. Approximate quantum fourier transform with o(n log(n)) t gates. npj Quantum Information , 6(1):26, Mar 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    C. J. Randall. Absorbing boundary condition for the elastic wave equation: Velocity‐stress formulation. GEOPHYSICS , 54(9):1141--1152, 1989

    1989

  25. [33]

    Transport equations for elastic and other waves in random media

    Leonid Ryzhik, George Papanicolaou, and Joseph B Keller. Transport equations for elastic and other waves in random media. Wave motion , 24(4):327--370, 1996

    1996

  26. [34]

    Practical quantum computing: Solving the wave equation using a quantum approach

    Adrien Suau, Gabriel Staffelbach, and Henri Calandra. Practical quantum computing: Solving the wave equation using a quantum approach. ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing , 2(1), February 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Quantum algorithm for partial differential equations of nonconservative systems with spatially varying parameters

    Yuki Sato, Hiroyuki Tezuka, Ruho Kondo, and Naoki Yamamoto. Quantum algorithm for partial differential equations of nonconservative systems with spatially varying parameters. Phys. Rev. Appl. , 23:014063, Jan 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    On the construction and comparison of difference schemes

    Gilbert Strang. On the construction and comparison of difference schemes. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , 5(3):506--517, 1968

    1968

  29. [37]

    Stable symmetric matrix form framework for the elastic wave equation combined with perfectly matched layer and discretized in the curve domain

    Cheng Sun, Zailin Yang, and Guanxixi Jiang. Stable symmetric matrix form framework for the elastic wave equation combined with perfectly matched layer and discretized in the curve domain. Symmetry , 12, 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Multiblock sbp-sat methodology of symmetric matrix form of elastic wave equations on curvilinear grids

    Cheng Sun, Zai-Lin Yang, Guan-Xi-Xi Jiang, and Yong Yang. Multiblock sbp-sat methodology of symmetric matrix form of elastic wave equations on curvilinear grids. Shock and Vibration , 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    P-sv wave propagation in heterogeneous media; velocity-stress finite-difference method

    Jean Virieux. P-sv wave propagation in heterogeneous media; velocity-stress finite-difference method. Geophysics , 51:1933--1942, 1986

    1933

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.