Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 1 cited by

A Quantum Path to Partial Differential Equations

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-13 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Block encoding turns discretized PDE operators into a common quantum pipeline for elliptic, hyperbolic, and parabolic equations, with every cost made explicit.

desk verdict Solid, carefully written lecture notes that give both communities a shared end-to-end pipeline from classical discretizations to block-encoded quantum PDE algorithms, without overclaiming advantage. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.09639 v1 pith:JDA7YV2O submitted 2026-07-10 quant-ph cs.NAmath.NA

Xiantao Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.NAmath.NA MSC 65N0665M0665F1068Q1281P68
keywords blockencodingquantumsingularvaluetransformationpartialdifferentialequationslinearsystemsHamiltoniansimulationfinitedifferenceselementsalgorithmsforscientificcomputing
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

These lecture notes argue that quantum algorithms for partial differential equations can be organized around one idea: block encoding. Once a finite-difference or finite-element operator sits as a scaled block inside a unitary, standard quantum tools—singular-value transformation, Hamiltonian simulation, linear combinations of unitaries, amplitude amplification, and measurement—can be composed into full solvers for the classical elliptic, hyperbolic, and parabolic model problems. Each chapter walks the same pipeline from continuous PDE through discretization, quantum encoding, matrix-function transformation, and extraction of a quantity of interest, keeping discretization error, state preparation, normalization, postselection, and measurement cost visible at every step. The notes do not claim universal quantum advantage; they offer a shared vocabulary so numerical analysts and quantum algorithmists can reason about end-to-end performance on the same terms. A short final chapter shows how nonlinear problems enter the same language via Carleman and Koopman–von Neumann linearizations.

What carries the argument

Block encoding: a unitary on an enlarged space whose top-left block is a scaled copy of the target matrix (the discretized differential operator). Once that access model is in place, polynomial matrix functions, unitary evolution, and linear combinations become circuit compositions whose query and success-probability costs are governed by the subnormalization factor and the spectral scale of the discretization.

What would settle it

Take a standard second-order elliptic problem on an unstructured mesh with variable coefficients and mixed boundary conditions; if no block encoding of the discrete stiffness (or its first-order factor) can be built with gate cost polylogarithmic in the number of degrees of freedom while keeping subnormalization of the expected mesh scale, the organizing claim that the pipeline extends beyond structured grids fails for that instance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that block encoding is a sufficient organizing principle for quantum PDE algorithms: embed a discretized differential operator as a submatrix of a unitary, then assemble quantum singular value transformation, Hamiltonian simulation, linear combinations of unitaries, amplitude amplification, and measurement into end-to-end algorithms for elliptic, hyperbolic, and parabolic equations, with discretization error, state preparation, normalization, postselection, and measurement cost tracked explicitly rather than hidden.

Load-bearing premise

The notes assume that the structured sparse or shift-based access needed for finite-difference and finite-element block encodings, and the efficient conditional integrals for smooth state preparation, stay cheap once realistic boundaries, variable coefficients, and unstructured meshes enter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Elliptic, hyperbolic, and parabolic model problems can be compared inside one cost checklist rather than as unrelated quantum algorithms.
  • Conditioning and mesh scale appear as concrete factors (for example inverse filters of order h^{-2}, wave simulation linear in T/h) that must be paid or reduced by factorization or spectral structure.
  • Quantities of interest and unnormalized norms must be recovered separately from normalized states, so measurement and postselection sit on equal footing with the matrix transformation.
  • Nonlinear PDEs enter only after a linearization whose truncation and output model determine what the quantum algorithm actually returns.
  • Researchers from either community gain a common pipeline language: continuous PDE → discretization → block encoding → transformation → quantity of interest.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If first-order factorizations and energy variables systematically cut the mesh exponent for elliptic and hyperbolic problems, preconditioning and structure-preserving discretizations become the main remaining levers for quantum PDE complexity.
  • The same end-to-end checklist implies that software stacks treating block encodings as matrix-like objects will need native accounting for subnormalization and success probability, not only gate count.
  • For applications that need the full grid field rather than a few observables, the notes’ emphasis on readout cost suggests classical multigrid and quantum methods will remain complementary rather than interchangeable.
  • Carleman and Koopman–von Neumann routes suggest that the hardness of nonlinear quantum PDE algorithms may concentrate in truncation error and output encoding more than in the linear solve itself.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. These lecture notes develop a block-encoding-centered pipeline for quantum algorithms for PDEs. After introducing states, measurement, amplitude encoding, block encodings, LCU, sparse access, and QSVT, the notes construct explicit finite-difference block encodings (e.g., the three-point and five-point Laplacians) and work through Poisson and Schrödinger examples. Chapters 2–4 then treat elliptic, hyperbolic, and parabolic model problems from classical discretization through quantum encoding, transformation, and quantity-of-interest extraction, with explicit attention to mesh-dependent conditioning, normalization, postselection, and measurement. Chapter 5 sketches nonlinear problems via Carleman and Koopman–von Neumann linearizations. The stated aim is a shared, numerically grounded vocabulary rather than a claim of universal quantum advantage.

Significance. The notes fill a genuine pedagogical gap between numerical PDE analysis and fault-tolerant quantum algorithms. Their main contribution is organizational and expository: they keep discretization error, block-encoding subnormalization, success probability, and readout cost visible in one pipeline, and they give concrete stencil-level constructions (Propositions 1.21–1.25; worked examples 1.15–1.16) that make the abstract primitives usable to numerical analysts. Strengths include explicit L2–ℓ2 bookkeeping, first-order factorization for elliptic and wave problems, and repeated caveats that polylog sparse/shift oracles and Grover–Rudolph preparation need not survive unstructured meshes. If adopted as a bridge text or topics-course basis, the notes would improve communication between the two communities without overstating advantage.

minor comments (6)
  1. The manuscript is truncated mid-sentence in §3.4.2 (Klein–Gordon splitting). Before any formal publication or course release, the remaining hyperbolic material, the full parabolic chapter, and Chapter 5 should be completed and checked for consistency of notation with Chapters 1–2.
  2. Preface and §1.1 cite both [60] and [61] for Lin–Wiebe notes; a single preferred citation (or an explicit distinction between versions) would reduce confusion for readers.
  3. In §1.13 the modular shift S is carefully distinguished from the phase gate S in (1.67); a short global notation table (shift vs phase vs selector) would still help when the same letter reappears in later chapters.
  4. §2.2.5 comparison table is schematic and useful, but a one-line reminder that classical multigrid already achieves nearly linear work for many elliptic problems (already noted in the text) could be repeated in the table caption so the table is not misread as an advantage claim.
  5. Several figures (e.g., 1.3, 1.9, 2.1) are described clearly in text; ensuring that circuit diagrams and stencil figures are rendered at publication quality will matter for classroom use.
  6. Minor copy-edits: occasional doubled words and incomplete sentences appear in the provided extract (e.g., near the §3.4.2 cutoff). A full proofread pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: pedagogical assembly of standard external primitives (block encodings, QSVT, classical discretizations) into an explicit PDE pipeline, with no fitted parameters or self-referential forcing of claims.

full rationale

The manuscript is lecture notes whose organizing claim is that once a discretized differential operator is block-encoded, standard primitives (QSVT, Hamiltonian simulation, LCU, amplitude amplification, measurement) can be composed into end-to-end algorithms for elliptic, hyperbolic and parabolic PDEs, with discretization, normalization, postselection and measurement costs kept explicit. Every load-bearing ingredient is imported from external, independently established sources: the block-encoding definition and calculus (Gilyén et al., Lin–Wiebe), QSVT polynomial transformations, sparse-access and LCU constructions, classical finite-difference/finite-element theory (Larsson–Thomée, Evans, etc.), and standard energy identities. The worked examples (periodic Laplacian LCU, Poisson inverse filter, Schrödinger evolution, mixed first-order elliptic systems, wave-to-Schrödinger factorization) are constructive rewritings of those external objects; they do not redefine the target quantities in terms of themselves, fit free parameters to data and re-label the fit as prediction, or rest on uniqueness theorems whose only support is the author’s prior work. The text repeatedly flags the scope limitations of the oracles (structured grids, smooth data, mass lumping) rather than smuggling them as universal. Consequently the derivation chain is self-contained against the cited literature and exhibits no circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

As expository lecture notes the work introduces no free parameters fitted to data and no new physical or mathematical entities. It relies on standard results from quantum algorithms (block encodings, QSVT, Hamiltonian simulation) and classical numerical analysis (finite-difference/finite-element consistency, stability, mass matrices) that are treated as established background.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Existence of efficient (α,a,ε) block encodings for s-sparse or structured circulant/finite-difference matrices via LCU of shifts or sparse oracles
    Invoked throughout Sections 1.11–1.13 and reused as the matrix-access model in Chapters 2–4; taken from the standard sparse-access and banded-circulant literature.
  • standard math QSVT implements bounded polynomial transformations of a block-encoded matrix with query cost linear in the polynomial degree
    Core tool for inverses, heat semigroups, and oscillatory propagators (Section 1.12); cited from Gilyén–Su–Low–Wiebe.
  • domain assumption Standard finite-difference and conforming finite-element error estimates (O(h²) L² for second-order elliptic/parabolic, CFL stability for waves)
    Used to convert mesh size into condition-number and simulation-time scales in every PDE chapter; drawn from classical numerical-PDE texts.
  • domain assumption Grover–Rudolph state preparation is efficient when dyadic integrals of a smooth density can be evaluated classically
    Assumed for loading smooth initial/forcing data (Section 1.6); efficiency fails for arbitrary classical data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Quantum Path to Partial Differential Equations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JDA7YV2O

@misc{pith2026260709639,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Quantum Path to Partial Differential Equations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JDA7YV2O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.09639}
}
read the original abstract

Partial differential equations are a promising application area for fault-tolerant quantum algorithms, but the subject lies between two communities with different languages: numerical analysis and quantum computation. These lecture notes provide a numerically grounded introduction for readers entering from either field. Block encoding is the organizing principle: once a discretized differential operator is embedded in a unitary, primitives such as quantum singular value transformation, Hamiltonian simulation, linear combinations of unitaries, amplitude amplification, and measurement can be assembled into algorithms for elliptic, hyperbolic, and parabolic PDEs. Each chapter begins with a standard finite difference or finite element discretization and follows the full pipeline from the continuous PDE to quantum encoding, transformation, and extraction of a quantity of interest. Particular attention is paid to the factors governing end-to-end performance, including discretization error, state preparation, normalization, postselection, and measurement cost. A final chapter introduces nonlinear problems through Carleman and Koopman-von Neumann linearizations. The aim is not a comprehensive survey or a claim of universal quantum advantage, but a mathematically transparent entry point and a shared vocabulary for researchers in both communities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09639 by the authors.

Figure 1.1
Figure 1.1. A system register is elevated to the larger space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1.2
Figure 1.2. The binary tree behind Grover–Rudolph state preparation. The node weight [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_1_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1.3
Figure 1.3. A QFT circuit on four qubits. Here Rm = diag(1, e2πi/2m ). The final swaps implement bit reversal. The inverse QFT reverses the gate order and replaces each Rm by R† m. The classical fast Fourier transform maps an explicitly stored vector in C N to another explicitly stored vector in O(N log N) arithmetic operations. The QFT instead maps an amplitude-encoded vector on n = log2 N qubits to another amplitude-encoded v… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 1.4
Figure 1.4. Figure 1.4: Swap test for estimating | ⟨u|v⟩ |2 . The controlled operation swaps the two input registers only when the ancilla is |1⟩, and the box M denotes computational-basis measurement of the ancilla. the first Hadamard gate gives |Ψ1⟩ = 1 √ 2 (|0⟩ |u⟩ |v⟩ + |1⟩ |u⟩ |v⟩). (1…
Figure 1.5
Figure 1.5. Figure 1.5: Hadamard test for estimating Re ⟨ψ| W |ψ⟩. The box M denotes computational-basis measurement of the ancilla. To estimate the imaginary part, insert S † before the final Hadamard, where S = diag(1, i) is the phase gate. For the real part, the state evolves as |0⟩ |ψ⟩ …
Figure 1.6
Figure 1.6. Figure 1.6: Repeated postselection with a reusable flag ancilla. Each box labeled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_1_6.png]
Figure 1.7
Figure 1.7. Figure 1.7: The three-point finite-difference stencil for the positive one-dimensional Laplacian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_1_7.png]
Figure 1.8
Figure 1.8. Figure 1.8: The one-dimensional three-point and two-dimensional five-point positive Laplacian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_1_8.png]
Figure 1.9
Figure 1.9. Figure 1.9: Three-stage LCU workflow for the periodic three-point Laplacian. The first box [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_1_9.png]
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1: The direct elliptic QLSA pipeline. Even if one application of the block encoding costs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p051_2_1.png]
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1: The generic wave-equation pipeline. The homogeneous energy-variable evolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p092_3_1.png]
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.1. Figure 5.1: Two linear ways to look at nonlinear dynamics. Carleman lifting keeps a single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p120_5_1.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Improved constant factors for qubitized Hamiltonian simulation

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    This paper proves that the Jacobi-Anger truncation degree for qubitized Hamiltonian simulation has leading constant 1, improving the previous rigorous bound with constant e/2.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Optimal-Degree Polynomial Approximations for Exponentials and Gaussian Kernel Density Estimation

    Amol Aggarwal and Josh Alman.Optimal-Degree Polynomial Approximations for Exponen- tials and Gaussian Kernel Density Estimation. 2022.doi:10.48550/arXiv.2205.06249. arXiv:2205.06249 [cs.DS]

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.06249 2022

  2. [2]

    Carleman linearization of nonlinear systems and its finite-section approximations

    Arash Amini, Cong Zheng, Qiyu Sun, and Nader Motee. “Carleman linearization of nonlinear systems and its finite-section approximations”. In:Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - B30.2 (2025), pp. 577–603.doi:10.3934/dcdsb.2024102. arXiv: 2207.07755 [math.DS]

    arXiv doi:10.3934/dcdsb.2024102 2025

  3. [3]

    Efficient Quantum Algorithm for Nonlinear Reaction–Diffusion Equations and Energy Estimation

    Dong An, Di Fang, Stephen Jordan, Jin-Peng Liu, Guang Hao Low, and Jiasu Wang. “Efficient Quantum Algorithm for Nonlinear Reaction–Diffusion Equations and Energy Estimation”. In:Communications in Mathematical Physics404 (2023), pp. 963–1020.doi: 10.1007/s00220-023-04857-9. arXiv:2205.01141 [quant-ph]

    arXiv doi:10.1007/s00220-023-04857-9 2023

  4. [4]

    Linear Combination of Hamiltonian Simulation for Nonunitary Dynamics with Optimal State Preparation Cost

    Dong An, Jin-Peng Liu, and Lin Lin. “Linear Combination of Hamiltonian Simulation for Nonunitary Dynamics with Optimal State Preparation Cost”. In:Physical Review Letters 131 (2023), p. 150603.doi: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevLett . 131 . 150603. arXiv: 2303 . 01029 [quant-ph]

    2023

  5. [5]

    Last updated April 17, 2026

    Juan Miguel Arrazola, Diego Guala, and Jay Soni.Linear Combination of Unitaries and Block Encodings. Last updated April 17, 2026. PennyLane Demos. Oct. 2023.url: https://pennylane.ai/demos/tutorial_lcu_blockencoding(visited on 07/06/2026)

    2026

  6. [6]

    Exponential quantum speedup in simulating coupled classical oscillators

    Ryan Babbush, Dominic W. Berry, Robin Kothari, Rolando D. Somma, and Nathan Wiebe. “Exponential Quantum Speedup in Simulating Coupled Classical Oscillators”. In:Physical Review X13 (2023), p. 041041.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041041. arXiv: 2303.13012 [quant-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041041 2023

  7. [7]

    2025.doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2511.09124

    Ryan Babbush et al.The Grand Challenge of Quantum Applications. 2025.doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2511.09124. arXiv:2511.09124 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Error Estimates for Finite Element Methods for Second Order Hyperbolic Equations

    Garth A. Baker. “Error Estimates for Finite Element Methods for Second Order Hyperbolic Equations”. In:SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis13.4 (1976), pp. 564–576.doi: 10.1137/0713048

    work page doi:10.1137/0713048 1976

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    Semidiscrete and Single Step Fully Discrete Approximations for Second Order Hyperbolic Equations

    Garth A. Baker and James H. Bramble. “Semidiscrete and Single Step Fully Discrete Approximations for Second Order Hyperbolic Equations”. In:RAIRO. Analyse Numérique 13.2 (1979), pp. 75–100.doi:10.1051/m2an/1979130200751.url: https://www.numdam. org/item/M2AN_1979__13_2_75_0/. ...

    1979 doi

  2. [10]

    High Order Accurate Two-Step Approximations for Hyperbolic Equations

    Garth A. Baker, Vassilios A. Dougalis, and Steven M. Serbin. “High Order Accurate Two-Step Approximations for Hyperbolic Equations”. In:ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis - Modélisation Mathématique et Analyse Numérique13.3 (1979), pp. 201–226.doi:10.1051/m2a...

    1979 doi

  3. [11]

    High-order quantum algorithm for solving linear differential equations

    Dominic W. Berry. “High-order quantum algorithm for solving linear differential equations”. In:Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical47.10 (2014), p. 105301.doi: 10.1088/1751-8113/47/10/105301. arXiv:1010.2745 [quant-ph]

    2014 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    Efficient Quantum Algorithms for Simulating Sparse Hamiltonians

    Dominic W. Berry, Graeme Ahokas, Richard Cleve, and Barry C. Sanders. “Efficient Quantum Algorithms for Simulating Sparse Hamiltonians”. In:Communications in Math- ematical Physics270.2 (2007), pp. 359–371.doi:10.1007/s00220-006-0150-x . arXiv: quant-ph/0508139

    2007 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    Quantum Algorithm for Linear Differential Equations with Exponentially Improved Dependence on Precision

    Dominic W. Berry, Andrew M. Childs, Aaron Ostrander, and Guoming Wang. “Quantum Algorithm for Linear Differential Equations with Exponentially Improved Dependence on Precision”. In:Communications in Mathematical Physics356.3 (2017), pp. 1057–1081.doi: 10.1007/s00220-017-3002-y...

    2017 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    Finite Element Approximation of Eigenvalue Problems

    Daniele Boffi. “Finite Element Approximation of Eigenvalue Problems”. In:Acta Numerica 19 (2010), pp. 1–120.doi:10.1017/S0962492910000012

    2010 doi

  7. [15]

    Parallel Multilevel Preconditioners

    James H. Bramble, Joseph E. Pasciak, and Jinchao Xu. “Parallel Multilevel Preconditioners”. In:Mathematics of Computation55.191 (1990), pp. 1–22.doi: 10.1090/S0025- 5718- 1990-1023042-6

    1990 doi

  8. [16]

    Gilles Brassard, Peter Hoyer, Michele Mosca, and Alain Tapp.Quantum Amplitude Ampli- fication and Estimation. 2000. arXiv:quant-ph/0005055 [quant-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Brenner and L

    Susanne C. Brenner and L. Ridgway Scott.The Mathematical Theory of Finite Element Methods. 3rd ed. Springer, 2008.doi:10.1007/978-0-387-75934-0

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    Quantum Finger- printing

    Harry Buhrman, Richard Cleve, John Watrous, and Ronald de Wolf. “Quantum Finger- printing”. In:Physical Review Letters87 (2001), p. 167902.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 87.167902

    2001 doi

  11. [19]

    Explicit Quantum Circuits for Block Encodings of Certain Sparse Matrices

    Daan Camps, Lin Lin, Roel Van Beeumen, and Chao Yang. “Explicit Quantum Circuits for Block Encodings of Certain Sparse Matrices”. In:SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications45.1 (2024), pp. 801–827.doi:10.1137/22M1484298. arXiv: 2203.10236 [quant-ph]

    2024 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    Theory of trotter error with commutator scaling

    Andrew M Childs, Yuan Su, Minh C Tran, Nathan Wiebe, and Shuchen Zhu. “Theory of trotter error with commutator scaling”. In:Physical Review X11.1 (2021), p. 011020

    2021

  13. [21]

    Childs.Lecture Notes on Quantum Algorithms

    Andrew M. Childs.Lecture Notes on Quantum Algorithms. Course notes. 2025.url: https://www.cs.umd.edu/~amchilds/qa/qa.pdf(visited on 07/05/2026)

    2025

  14. [22]

    High-Precision Quantum Algo- rithms for Partial Differential Equations

    Andrew M. Childs, Jin-Peng Liu, and Aaron Ostrander. “High-Precision Quantum Algo- rithms for Partial Differential Equations”. In:Quantum5 (2021), p. 574.doi:10.22331/q- 2021-11-10-574. arXiv:2002.07868 [quant-ph]

    2021 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    Orig- inal IBM Research Report RC 19642, 1994

    Don Coppersmith.An Approximate Fourier Transform Useful in Quantum Factoring. Orig- inal IBM Research Report RC 19642, 1994. 2002. arXiv:quant-ph/0201067 [quant-ph]

    1994 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Quantum Algorithm for Simulating the Wave Equation

    Pedro C. S. Costa, Stephen Jordan, and Aaron Ostrander. “Quantum Algorithm for Simulating the Wave Equation”. In:Physical Review A99.1 (2019), p. 012323.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.99.012323. arXiv:1711.05394 [quant-ph]. BIBLIOGRAPHY127

    2019 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    Further improving quantum algorithms for nonlinear differential equations via higher-order methods and rescaling

    Pedro C. S. Costa, Philipp Schleich, Mauro E. S. Morales, and Dominic W. Berry. “Further improving quantum algorithms for nonlinear differential equations via higher-order methods and rescaling”. In:npj Quantum Information11 (2025), p. 141.doi:10.1038/s41534- 025-01084-z

    2025 doi

  18. [26]

    Kottmann, and Daniel Peterseim

    Matthias Deiml, Oliver Hüttenhofer, Ram Mosco, Jakob S. Kottmann, and Daniel Peterseim. Unitaria: Quantum Linear Algebra via Block Encodings. 2026.doi:10.48550/arXiv.2605. 10768. arXiv:2605.10768 [quant-ph]

    2026 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    Quantum Realization of the Finite Element Method

    Matthias Deiml and Daniel Peterseim. “Quantum Realization of the Finite Element Method”. In:Mathematics of Computation(2025). Accepted; arXiv:2403.19512.doi:10. 1090/mcom/4137. arXiv:2403.19512 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Even Shorter Quantum Circuit for Phase Estimation on Early Fault-TolerantQuantumComputerswithApplicationstoGround-StateEnergyEstimation

    Zhiyan Ding and Lin Lin. “Even Shorter Quantum Circuit for Phase Estimation on Early Fault-TolerantQuantumComputerswithApplicationstoGround-StateEnergyEstimation”. In:PRX Quantum4.2 (2023), p. 020331.doi: 10.1103/PRXQuantum.4.020331 . arXiv: 2211.11973 [quant-ph]

    2023 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    Multistep-Galerkin Methods for Hyperbolic Equations

    Vassilios A. Dougalis. “Multistep-Galerkin Methods for Hyperbolic Equations”. In:Math- ematics of Computation33.146 (1979), pp. 563–584.doi:10.1090/S0025-5718-1979- 0521277-5

    1979 doi

  22. [30]

    L2-Estimates for Galerkin Methods for Second Order Hyperbolic Equations

    Todd Dupont. “L2-Estimates for Galerkin Methods for Second Order Hyperbolic Equations”. In:SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis10.5 (1973), pp. 880–889.doi:10.1137/0710073

    1973 doi

  23. [31]

    Evans.Partial Differential Equations

    Lawrence C. Evans.Partial Differential Equations. 2nd ed. Vol. 19. Graduate Studies in Mathematics. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 2010.isbn: 9780821849743

    2010

  24. [32]

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

  25. [33]

    arXiv:1711.02552 [math.NA]

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    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. 2019, pp. 193–204.doi:10.1145/33...

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    Grover and Terry Rudolph.Creating Superpositions that Correspond to Efficiently Integrable Probability Distributions

    Lov K. Grover and Terry Rudolph.Creating Superpositions that Correspond to Efficiently Integrable Probability Distributions. 2002. arXiv:quant-ph/0208112 [quant-ph]

    2002 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Quantum Algorithm for Linear Systems of Equations

    Aram W. Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd. “Quantum Algorithm for Linear Systems of Equations”. In:Physical Review Letters103 (2009), p. 150502.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.103.150502

    2009

  29. [37]

    2026.doi:10.48550/arXiv.2604.25825

    Chih-Kang Huang, Giacomo Antonioli, and Frédéric Barbaresco.A Quantum Spectral Framework for Solving PDEs. 2026.doi:10.48550/arXiv.2604.25825. arXiv:2604.25825 [quant-ph]

    2026 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    Qiskit Function Catalog documentation

    IBM Quantum.QUICK-PDE: A Qiskit Function by ColibriTD. Qiskit Function Catalog documentation. 2025.url: https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/docs/guides/colibritd- pde(visited on 07/05/2026)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Online documentation and learning resources

    IBM Quantum.IBM Quantum Learning and Qiskit Documentation. Online documentation and learning resources. 2026.url: https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/docs (visited on 07/05/2026)

    2026

  32. [40]

    2024.doi: 10.48550/arXiv

    Ali Javadi-Abhari et al.Quantum Computing with Qiskit. 2024.doi: 10.48550/arXiv. 2405.08810. arXiv:2405.08810 [quant-ph]. BIBLIOGRAPHY128

    2024 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    Sornborger, Yigit Subasi, and Guoming Wang.Quantum Algorithms for General Nonlinear Dynamics Based on the Carleman Embedding

    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. 2025.doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.07155. arXiv: 2509.07155 [quant-ph]

    2025 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    David Jennings, Kamil Korzekwa, Matteo Lostaglio, and Guoming Wang.Quantum Koop- man Algorithms. 2026. arXiv:2605.19054 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Quantum algorithms for computing observables of nonlinear partial differential equations

    Shi Jin and Nana Liu. “Quantum algorithms for computing observables of nonlinear partial differential equations”. In:Bulletin des Sciences Mathématiques194 (2024), p. 103457.doi: 10.1016/j.bulsci.2024.103457. arXiv:2202.07834 [quant-ph]

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    Prepared for the Proceed- ings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Hyperbolic Problems, based on a plenary lecture

    Shi Jin and Nana Liu.Schrödingerization-based quantum simulation of partial differential equations and related problems – a continuous-variable perspective. Prepared for the Proceed- ings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Hyperbolic Problems, based on a plenary lec...

    2025

  37. [45]

    Quantum Algorithms for Viscosity Solutions to Nonlinear Hamilton– JacobiEquationsBasedonanEntropyPenalisationMethod

    Shi Jin and Nana Liu. “Quantum Algorithms for Viscosity Solutions to Nonlinear Hamilton– JacobiEquationsBasedonanEntropyPenalisationMethod”.In:Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences123.24 (2026), e2607144123.doi: 10.1073/pnas.2607144123. arXiv: 2512.07919 [quant-ph]

    2026 doi

  38. [46]

    On Schrödingerization-Based Quantum Algorithms for Linear Dynamical Systems with Inhomogeneous Terms

    Shi Jin, Nana Liu, and Chuwen Ma. “On Schrödingerization-Based Quantum Algorithms for Linear Dynamical Systems with Inhomogeneous Terms”. In:SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis63.4 (2025), pp. 1861–1885.doi: 10 . 1137 / 24M164272X. arXiv: 2402 . 14696 [quant-ph]

    2025

  39. [47]

    Time complexity analysis of quantum algorithms via linear representations for nonlinear ordinary and partial differential equations

    Shi Jin, Nana Liu, and Yue Yu. “Time complexity analysis of quantum algorithms via linear representations for nonlinear ordinary and partial differential equations”. In:Journal of Computational Physics487 (2023), p. 112149.doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2023.112149. arXiv: 2209.08478 [quant-ph]

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    Quantum Simulation of Partial Differential Equations via Schrödingerization

    Shi Jin, Nana Liu, and Yue Yu. “Quantum Simulation of Partial Differential Equations via Schrödingerization”. In:Physical Review Letters133 (2024), p. 230602.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.133.230602. arXiv:2212.13969 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    2026.doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.03616

    Shi Jin, Chuwen Ma, and Enrique Zuazua.Transmutation based Quantum Simulation for Non-unitary Dynamics. 2026.doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.03616 . arXiv: 2601.03616 [quant-ph]

    2026 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

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

    Ilon Joseph. “Koopman–von Neumann approach to quantum simulation of nonlinear classical dynamics”. In:Physical Review Research2 (2020), p. 043102.doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevResearch.2.043102. arXiv:2003.09980 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Phillip Kaye and Michele Mosca.Quantum Networks for Generating Arbitrary Quantum States. 2004. arXiv:quant-ph/0407102 [quant-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  44. [52]

    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.doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.15523. arXiv:2601.15523 [quant-ph]

    2026 doi arXiv

  45. [53]

    Improved quantum algorithms for linear and nonlinear differential equations

    Hari Krovi. “Improved quantum algorithms for linear and nonlinear differential equations”. In:Quantum7 (Feb. 2023), p. 913.doi: 10.22331/q-2023-02-02-913. arXiv:2202.01054 [quant-ph]. BIBLIOGRAPHY129

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    Stig Larsson and Vidar Thomée.Partial Differential Equations with Numerical Methods. Vol. 45. Texts in Applied Mathematics. Springer, 2009.doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88706-5

    2009 doi

  47. [55]

    RandallJ.LeVeque.Finite Volume Methods for Hyperbolic Problems.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2002.isbn: 9780521009249

    2002

  48. [56]

    Limitations for Quantum Algorithms to Solve Turbulent and Chaotic Systems

    Dylan Lewis, Stephan Eidenbenz, Balasubramanya Nadiga, and Yiğit Subaşı. “Limitations for Quantum Algorithms to Solve Turbulent and Chaotic Systems”. In:Quantum8 (2024), p. 1509.doi:10.22331/q-2024-10-24-1509. arXiv:2307.09593 [quant-ph]

    2024 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    Exponential Quantum Speedup for Simulating Classical Lattice Dynamics

    Xiantao Li. “Exponential Quantum Speedup for Simulating Classical Lattice Dynamics”. In:Physical Review Letters135.8 (2025), p. 080602.doi: 10.1103/z2jq- 1rxp . arXiv: 2504.05453 [quant-ph]

    2025 doi arXiv

  50. [58]

    2026.doi: 10

    Xiantao Li.A Residual-Based Quantum Linear System Algorithm with Dynamic Stopping and Applications to Elliptic PDEs. 2026.doi: 10 . 48550 / arXiv . 2605 . 06414. arXiv: 2605.06414 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  51. [59]

    From linear differential equations to unitaries: A moment-matching dilation framework with near-optimal quantum algorithms

    Xiantao Li. “From linear differential equations to unitaries: A moment-matching dilation framework with near-optimal quantum algorithms”. In:PRX Quantum7.2 (2026), p. 020350

    2026

  52. [60]

    Manuscript

    Xiantao Li.Multilevel Quantum Estimation of Parabolic PDE Observables. Manuscript. 2026

    2026

  53. [61]

    2022.doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2201.08309

    Lin Lin.Lecture Notes on Quantum Algorithms for Scientific Computation. 2022.doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2201.08309. arXiv:2201.08309 [quant-ph]

    2022 doi arXiv

  54. [62]

    Preliminary lecture notes, continuously updated

    Lin Lin and Nathan Wiebe.Quantum Algorithms for Scientific Computation. Preliminary lecture notes, continuously updated. Apr. 2026.url: https : / / math . berkeley . edu / ~linlin/qasc/live_notes_0429.pdf(visited on 06/21/2026)

    2026

  55. [63]

    Lowrie, Denis Aslangil, Yiğit Subaşı, and Andrew T

    Yen Ting Lin, Robert B. Lowrie, Denis Aslangil, Yiğit Subaşı, and Andrew T. Sornborger. Challenges for Quantum Computation of Nonlinear Dynamical Systems Using Linear Representations. Revised version. 2024. arXiv:2202.02188 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Quantum vs. classical algorithms for solving the heat equation

    Noah Linden, Ashley Montanaro, and Changpeng Shao. “Quantum vs. classical algorithms for solving the heat equation”. In:Communications in Mathematical Physics395 (2022), pp. 601–641.doi:10.1007/s00220-022-04442-6. arXiv:2004.06516 [quant-ph]

    2022 doi arXiv

  57. [65]

    Efficient quantum algorithm for dissipative nonlinear differential equations

    Jin-Peng Liu, Herman Øie Kolden, Hari K. Krovi, Nuno F. Loureiro, Konstantina Trivisa, and Andrew M. Childs. “Efficient quantum algorithm for dissipative nonlinear differential equations”. In:Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118.35 (2021), e2026805118. doi:10.107...

    2021 doi arXiv

  58. [66]

    Quantum Computation over Continuous Variables

    Seth Lloyd and Samuel L. Braunstein. “Quantum Computation over Continuous Variables”. In:Physical Review Letters82.8 (1999), pp. 1784–1787.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.82

    1999 doi

  59. [67]

    eprint:quant-ph/9810082

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    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

  61. [69]

    arXiv:2011.06571 [quant-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Hamiltonian Simulation by Qubitization

    Guang Hao Low and Isaac L. Chuang. “Hamiltonian Simulation by Qubitization”. In: Quantum3 (2019), p. 163.doi: 10 . 22331 / q - 2019 - 07 - 12 - 163. arXiv: 1610 . 06546 [quant-ph]. BIBLIOGRAPHY130

    2019

  63. [71]

    Quantum Circuits for Partial Differential Equations in Fourier Space

    Michael Lubasch, Yuta Kikuchi, Lewis Wright, and Conor Mc Keever. “Quantum Circuits for Partial Differential Equations in Fourier Space”. In:Physical Review Research7.4 (2025), p. 043326.doi:10.1103/tbzc-w9x8. arXiv:2505.16895 [quant-ph]

    2025 doi

  64. [72]

    K. W. Morton and D. F. Mayers.Numerical Solution of Partial Differential Equations: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 2005.isbn: 9780521607933

    2005

  65. [73]

    Determining Eigenstates and Thermal States on a Quantum Computer Using Quantum Imaginary Time Evolution

    Mario Motta, Chong Sun, Adrian T. K. Tan, Matthew J. O’Rourke, Erika Ye, Austin J. Minnich, Fernando G. S. L. Brandão, and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan. “Determining Eigenstates and Thermal States on a Quantum Computer Using Quantum Imaginary Time Evolution”. In:Nature Physics16 (2020)...

    2020 doi arXiv

  66. [74]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang.Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. 10th Anniversary. Cambridge University Press, 2010.isbn: 9781107002173

    2010

  67. [75]

    On Solving Classes of Positive-Definite Quantum Linear Systems with Quadratically Improved Runtime in the Condition Number

    Davide Orsucci and Vedran Dunjko. “On Solving Classes of Positive-Definite Quantum Linear Systems with Quadratically Improved Runtime in the Condition Number”. In: Quantum5 (2021), p. 573.doi: 10 . 22331 / q - 2021 - 11 - 08 - 573. arXiv: 2101 . 11868 [quant-ph]

    2021

  68. [76]

    Quantum phase estimation for a class of generalized eigenvalue problems

    Jeffrey B Parker and Ilon Joseph. “Quantum phase estimation for a class of generalized eigenvalue problems”. In:Physical Review A102.2 (2020), p. 022422

    2020

  69. [77]

    2026.doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.18276

    Matic Petric and René Zander.Block-encodings as programming abstractions: The Eclipse Qrisp BlockEncoding Interface. 2026.doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.18276 . arXiv: 2604. 18276 [quant-ph]

    2026 doi arXiv

  70. [78]

    Quantum algorithms for estimating physical quantities using block encodings

    Patrick Rall. “Quantum algorithms for estimating physical quantities using block encodings”. In:Physical Review A102.2 (2020), p. 022408.doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.102.022408. arXiv: 2004.06832 [quant-ph]

    2020 doi arXiv

  71. [79]

    Yousef Saad.Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Systems. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM, 2003.doi:10.1137/1.9780898718003

    2003 doi

  72. [80]

    Hamiltonian simulation for nonlin- ear partial differential equation by Schrödingerization

    Shoya Sasaki, Katsuhiro Endo, and Mayu Muramatsu. “Hamiltonian simulation for nonlin- ear partial differential equation by Schrödingerization”. In:Scientific Reports16 (2026), p. 11743.doi:10.1038/s41598-026-44920-8. arXiv:2508.01640 [quant-ph]

    2026 doi arXiv

  73. [81]

    News release describing UnitaryLab 1.0

    Shanghai Jiao Tong University.The World’s First—Officially Launched by SJTU. News release describing UnitaryLab 1.0. Nov. 2025.url: https://en.sjtu.edu.cn/news- events/news/2417(visited on 07/06/2026)

    2025

  74. [82]

    Koopman Spectral Linearization vs. Carleman Linearization: A Computational Comparison Study

    Dongwei Shi and Xiu Yang. “Koopman Spectral Linearization vs. Carleman Linearization: A Computational Comparison Study”. In:Mathematics12.14 (2024), p. 2156.doi: 10. 3390/math12142156. arXiv:2310.19078 [math.DS]

    2024 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Last updated June 15, 2026

    Jay Soni, Diego Guala, and Soran Jahangiri.Block Encoding with Matrix Access Oracles. Last updated June 15, 2026. PennyLane Demos. Nov. 2023.url:https://pennylane.ai/ demos/tutorial_block_encoding(visited on 07/06/2026)

    2026

  76. [84]

    Last updated April 17, 2026

    Jay Soni and Jarrett Smalley.QSVT in Practice. Last updated April 17, 2026. PennyLane Demos. Aug. 2023.url: https://pennylane.ai/demos/tutorial_apply_qsvt (visited on 07/06/2026). BIBLIOGRAPHY131

    2026

  77. [85]

    Vidar Thomée.Galerkin Finite Element Methods for Parabolic Problems. 2nd ed. Vol. 25. Springer Series in Computational Mathematics. Springer, 2006.doi: 10.1007/3- 540- 33122-0

    2006 doi

  78. [86]

    Fast inversion, preconditioned quantum linear system solvers, fast Green’s-function computation, and fast evaluation of matrix functions

    Yu Tong, Dong An, Nathan Wiebe, and Lin Lin. “Fast inversion, preconditioned quantum linear system solvers, fast Green’s-function computation, and fast evaluation of matrix functions”. In:Physical Review A104 (2021), p. 032422.doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.104. 032422

    2021 doi

  79. [87]

    Aslak Tveito and Ragnar Winther.Introduction to Partial Differential Equations: A Com- putational Approach. Vol. 29. Texts in Applied Mathematics. Berlin: Springer, 2005

    2005

  80. [88]

    Updated version, 2023

    Ronald de Wolf.Quantum Computing: Lecture Notes. Updated version, 2023. 2019.doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1907.09415. arXiv:1907.09415 [quant-ph]

    2023 doi arXiv

  81. [89]

    Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quan- tum Simulation of the One-Dimensional Wave Equation

    Lewis Wright, Conor Mc Keever, Jeremy T. First, Rory Johnston, Jeremy Tillay, Skylar Chaney, Matthias Rosenkranz, and Michael Lubasch. “Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quan- tum Simulation of the One-Dimensional Wave Equation”. In:Physical Review Research 6.4 (2024), p. 043169.doi: 1...

    2024 doi arXiv

  82. [90]

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

    Hsuan-Cheng Wu, Jingyao Wang, and Xiantao Li. “Quantum Algorithms for Nonlinear Dynamics: Revisiting Carleman Linearization with No Dissipative Conditions”. In:SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing47.2 (2025), A943–A970.doi: 10 . 1137 / 24M1665799. arXiv:2405.12714 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 13, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.