pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.20071 · v1 · pith:NQ2Q423Hnew · submitted 2026-05-19 · 🪐 quant-ph

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

Ke Wang , Zikang Jia , Shravan Veerapaneni , Zhiyan Ding This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 05:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum algorithmsnonlinear differential equationsCarleman linearizationpivot shiftquantum simulationLyapunov transform
0
0 comments X

The pith

By shifting nonlinear dynamics around a chosen pivot state, Carleman linearization enables quantum algorithms to handle longer simulation times and drop initial-condition restrictions.

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

The paper develops a pivot-shifted Carleman linearization for quantum simulation of quadratic nonlinear ODEs. Shifting the dynamics by a pivot state and applying Lyapunov transform plus rescaling enlarges the class of systems that can be simulated. For stable shifted systems the truncation order scales only logarithmically with time and precision, yielding end-to-end quantum complexity bounds. A modified nonlinearity condition removes the conventional lower bound on the initial condition. Short-time guarantees hold without that bound for systems that remain unstable after shifting.

Core claim

Pivot-shifted Carleman linearization enlarges the class of nonlinear systems that quantum computers can simulate efficiently. For systems stable after the shift, long-time convergence of the truncated embedding is established, with the truncation order scaling logarithmically with simulation time and target precision. End-to-end quantum query complexity bounds are derived for state preparation. The modified nonlinearity condition eliminates the conventional lower bound on the initial condition. Short-time convergence holds more generally without that bound.

What carries the argument

The pivot shift applied to the nonlinear system before Carleman lifting, which recenters the dynamics to satisfy a stability condition and enables logarithmic truncation scaling.

If this is right

  • Truncation order scales logarithmically with simulation time and target precision for stable shifted systems.
  • End-to-end quantum query complexity bounds are derived for preparing the final solution state.
  • Modified nonlinearity condition removes the lower bound requirement on the initial condition.
  • Short-time convergence guarantees apply to unstable shifted systems without initial-condition constraints.
  • Good pivot choice yields exponential error decay with truncation order in numerical tests.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Optimal pivot selection methods could be developed to automate stability improvement.
  • The technique might combine with other quantum linear system solvers beyond those used here.
  • Numerical validation on larger systems could confirm the logarithmic scaling in practice.
  • Links to classical numerical methods for stiff equations may offer hybrid classical-quantum approaches.

Load-bearing premise

A pivot state exists that makes the shifted system stable in the sense required for long-time convergence of the truncated Carleman embedding.

What would settle it

Finding a nonlinear system where every possible pivot leaves the shifted system unstable enough that truncation error fails to decay logarithmically with order for long times.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.20071 by Ke Wang, Shravan Veerapaneni, Zhiyan Ding, Zikang Jia.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Flowchart for the pivot-shifted Carleman linearization algorithm. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Performance of the standard Carleman linearization and the PSC method on the logistic equation Eq. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Performance of the standard Carleman linearization and the PSC method on the Lotka-Volterra equations with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We develop a pivot-shifted Carleman linearization framework for quantum algorithms solving quadratic nonlinear ordinary differential equations. By shifting the dynamics by a pivot state prior to Carleman lifting, and combining this with a Lyapunov transform and rescaling, we enlarge the class of nonlinear systems that can be efficiently simulated on quantum computers. For systems that exhibit stability in the shifted coordinates, we establish long time convergence of the truncated Carleman embedding. We prove that the truncation order scales only logarithmically with the simulation time and target precision, and we derive end-to-end quantum query complexity bounds for preparing a state proportional to the final solution. By introducing a modified nonlinearity condition, this framework entirely removes the conventional lower bound requirement on the initial condition. For more general systems that remain unstable after shifting, we provide short time convergence guarantees that are similarly free from the initial condition constraints. Numerical experiments on the logistic and the Lotka-Volterra equations demonstrate that an appropriate pivot choice improves stability and accuracy, and yields exponential error decay with truncation order. These results show that pivot shifting provides a practical and theoretically justified route for extending Carleman-based quantum algorithms to a broader class of nonlinear dynamical systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper develops a pivot-shifted Carleman linearization framework for quantum algorithms solving quadratic nonlinear ODEs. Shifting the dynamics by a pivot state, combined with a Lyapunov transform and rescaling, is claimed to enlarge the simulable class of systems. For shifted systems that satisfy a stability condition, the truncation order of the Carleman embedding is proven to scale only logarithmically with simulation time T and target precision ε, yielding end-to-end quantum query complexity bounds for state preparation. A modified nonlinearity condition removes the conventional lower bound on the initial condition. Short-time guarantees are provided for unstable cases. Numerical experiments on the logistic and Lotka-Volterra equations illustrate improved stability, accuracy, and exponential error decay with truncation order for chosen pivots.

Significance. If the stability condition holds and a suitable pivot can be identified, the framework meaningfully extends Carleman-based quantum simulation to a broader set of nonlinear dynamical systems by achieving logarithmic truncation scaling and relaxing initial-condition constraints. The explicit end-to-end query bounds and the removal of the initial-condition lower bound via the modified nonlinearity condition are concrete strengths that would improve upon prior Carleman linearization results.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / long-time convergence section] Abstract and the section on long-time convergence guarantees: the central logarithmic scaling claim for truncation order with T and 1/ε is conditioned on the existence of a pivot state such that the shifted system satisfies the required stability condition (including after Lyapunov transform and rescaling). No general existence theorem, constructive algorithm, or efficient method to find such a pivot is supplied; only specific examples are shown. This assumption is load-bearing for the long-time complexity improvement.
  2. [Section introducing modified nonlinearity condition] The modified nonlinearity condition that removes the conventional lower bound on the initial condition is introduced, but the manuscript does not explicitly verify that this condition is preserved under the pivot shift and subsequent Lyapunov transform for general quadratic systems; a counter-example or additional proof would be needed to confirm the claim holds without reintroducing initial-condition restrictions.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the pivot state and shifted variables should be introduced with a clear table or diagram early in the manuscript to avoid ambiguity when comparing original and shifted Carleman embeddings.
  2. [Numerical experiments] The numerical experiments section would benefit from an explicit statement of how the pivot was selected in each example (e.g., via optimization or heuristic) and whether that selection scales with system size.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive review. We address the two major comments point by point below, indicating where revisions will be made to improve the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / long-time convergence section] Abstract and the section on long-time convergence guarantees: the central logarithmic scaling claim for truncation order with T and 1/ε is conditioned on the existence of a pivot state such that the shifted system satisfies the required stability condition (including after Lyapunov transform and rescaling). No general existence theorem, constructive algorithm, or efficient method to find such a pivot is supplied; only specific examples are shown. This assumption is load-bearing for the long-time complexity improvement.

    Authors: We agree that the logarithmic truncation scaling and resulting complexity bounds hold only when a pivot exists that satisfies the stability condition after shifting, Lyapunov transformation, and rescaling. The manuscript develops the framework and derives the bounds under this assumption, supported by explicit constructions and numerical results for the logistic and Lotka-Volterra equations. A general existence theorem or efficient algorithm for arbitrary quadratic systems lies outside the paper's scope, as suitable pivots are system-dependent. In revision we will add a dedicated subsection discussing practical pivot-selection heuristics derived from the stability analysis and the numerical examples, together with a clearer statement of the assumption's role. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Section introducing modified nonlinearity condition] The modified nonlinearity condition that removes the conventional lower bound on the initial condition is introduced, but the manuscript does not explicitly verify that this condition is preserved under the pivot shift and subsequent Lyapunov transform for general quadratic systems; a counter-example or additional proof would be needed to confirm the claim holds without reintroducing initial-condition restrictions.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this gap. The modified nonlinearity condition is introduced precisely to eliminate the conventional initial-condition lower bound after the pivot shift. To confirm that the condition remains valid under the constant shift and the subsequent Lyapunov transform for quadratic nonlinearities, we will insert a short verification lemma in the revised manuscript. The lemma will show that the quadratic structure is preserved by translation and that the modified bound on the nonlinearity coefficients continues to hold without restoring the original initial-condition restriction, provided the pivot is chosen to satisfy the stability condition already required for long-time convergence. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; central claims rest on conditional mathematical derivations.

full rationale

The paper explicitly conditions its long-time logarithmic truncation scaling and quantum query bounds on the existence of a pivot yielding stability in shifted coordinates, with proofs via Lyapunov transform and rescaling under a modified nonlinearity condition. These steps are self-contained mathematical arguments rather than reductions to fitted inputs, self-citations, or definitional equivalences. Numerical demonstrations on logistic and Lotka-Volterra equations illustrate pivot benefits but are not load-bearing for the theoretical results, which remain independent of any data-driven construction or prior author-specific uniqueness theorems.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the standard properties of Carleman linearization for quadratic systems plus the new assumption that a suitable pivot exists to induce stability; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • pivot state
    Chosen so the shifted dynamics satisfy the stability condition; selection method not specified in abstract.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The target system is a quadratic nonlinear ordinary differential equation.
    Required for the Carleman lifting to produce a closed linear system.
  • ad hoc to paper A pivot state exists that renders the shifted system stable.
    Central to the long-time convergence claim.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5743 in / 1334 out tokens · 36859 ms · 2026-05-20T05:10:10.880970+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Lemma IV.5.Under Assumptions I.1 and I.2

    Proof of Proposition IV.3 We first establish a bound on the solutionv(t) of the shifted system, which is crucial for analyzing the convergence of the Carleman linearization. Lemma IV.5.Under Assumptions I.1 and I.2. Considerv(t)in Eq.(22). Define rP ± = −µP (F1,s)± p µP (F1,s)2 −4∥F 2,s∥P ∥F0,s∥P 2∥F2,s∥P . (39) Then, max t∈[0,T] ∥v(t)∥= ( ∥v(0)∥if∥v(0)∥ ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Quantum mechanical computers.Foundations of physics, 16(6):507–531, 1986

    Richard P Feynman. Quantum mechanical computers.Foundations of physics, 16(6):507–531, 1986

    work page 1986

  3. [3]

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

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

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    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. 25

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Efficient Quantum Algorithms for Simulating Lindblad Evolution

    Richard Cleve and Chunhao Wang. Efficient Quantum Algorithms for Simulating Lindblad Evolution. In44th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2017), volume 80, pages 17:1–17:14. Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum f¨ ur Informatik, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Simulating Markovian Open Quantum Systems Using Higher-Order Series Expansion

    Xiantao Li and Chunhao Wang. Simulating Markovian Open Quantum Systems Using Higher-Order Series Expansion. In50th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2023), volume 261 ofLeibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), pages 87:1–87:20, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2023. Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz- Zentrum f¨ ur Informatik

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Simulating open quantum systems using Hamiltonian simulations.PRX quantum, 5(2):020332, 2024

    Zhiyan Ding, Xiantao Li, and Lin Lin. Simulating open quantum systems using Hamiltonian simulations.PRX quantum, 5(2):020332, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Quantum algorithms for scientific computation, April 2026

    Lin Lin and Nathan Wiebe. Quantum algorithms for scientific computation, April 2026

    work page 2026

  9. [9]

    Cambridge University Press, 2025

    Alexander M Dalzell, Sam McArdle, Mario Berta, Przemyslaw Bienias, Chi-Fang Chen, Andr´ as Gily´ en, Connor T Hann, Michael J Kastoryano, Emil T Khabiboulline, Aleksander Kubica, et al.Quantum algorithms: A survey of applications and end-to-end complexities. Cambridge University Press, 2025

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

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

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

    work page 2009

  11. [11]

    Quantum algorithm for systems of linear equations with exponentially improved dependence on precision.SIAM Journal on Computing, 46(6):1920–1950, 2017

    Andrew M Childs, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D Somma. Quantum algorithm for systems of linear equations with exponentially improved dependence on precision.SIAM Journal on Computing, 46(6):1920–1950, 2017

    work page 1920

  12. [12]

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

    Pedro CS Costa, Dong An, Yuval R Sanders, Yuan Su, Ryan Babbush, and Dominic W Berry. Optimal scaling quantum linear-systems solver via discrete adiabatic theorem.PRX quantum, 3(4):040303, 2022

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Time-marching based quantum solvers for time-dependent linear differential equations

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

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    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

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

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

    work page 2026

  16. [16]

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

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

    work page 2014

  17. [17]

    Quantum algorithm for linear differential equations with exponentially improved dependence on precision.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 356(3):1057– 1081, 2017

    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

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    Quantum linear system solvers: A survey of algorithms and applications.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02522, 2024

    Mauro ES Morales, Lirand¨ e Pira, Philipp Schleich, Kelvin Koor, Pedro Costa, Dong An, Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, Lin Lin, Patrick Rebentrost, and Dominic W Berry. Quantum linear system solvers: A survey of algorithms and applications.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02522, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    crc Press, 2021

    Roger W Hockney and James W Eastwood.Computer simulation using particles. crc Press, 2021

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    Springer, 2007

    Alwyn C Scott.The nonlinear universe: chaos, emergence, life. Springer, 2007

    work page 2007

  21. [21]

    The pricing of options and corporate liabilities.Journal of political economy, 81(3):637– 654, 1973

    Fischer Black and Myron Scholes. The pricing of options and corporate liabilities.Journal of political economy, 81(3):637– 654, 1973

    work page 1973

  22. [22]

    Mathematical analysis of chemical reaction systems.Israel Journal of Chemistry, 58(6-7):733–741, 2018

    Polly Y Yu and Gheorghe Craciun. Mathematical analysis of chemical reaction systems.Israel Journal of Chemistry, 58(6-7):733–741, 2018

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

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

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

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    Variational quantum algorithms for nonlinear problems.Physical Review A, 101(1):010301, 2020

    Michael Lubasch, Jaewoo Joo, Pierre Moinier, Martin Kiffner, and Dieter Jaksch. Variational quantum algorithms for nonlinear problems.Physical Review A, 101(1):010301, 2020

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    Hybrid quantum-classical reservoir computing of thermal convection flow.Physical review research, 4(3):033176, 2022

    Philipp Pfeffer, Florian Heyder, and J¨ org Schumacher. Hybrid quantum-classical reservoir computing of thermal convection flow.Physical review research, 4(3):033176, 2022

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    A quantum algorithm to solve nonlinear differential equations

    Sarah K Leyton and Tobias J Osborne. A quantum algorithm to solve nonlinear differential equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:0812.4423, 2008

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  27. [27]

    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), 2021

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Jennings, K

    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: 2509.07155, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    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. Publisher: Verein zur F¨ orderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    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

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Pivot rules for linear programming: a survey on recent theoretical developments

    Tam´ as Terlaky and Shuzhong Zhang. Pivot rules for linear programming: a survey on recent theoretical developments. Annals of operations research, 46(1):203–233, 1993

    work page 1993

  32. [32]

    Athena scientific Belmont, MA, 1997

    Dimitris Bertsimas and John N Tsitsiklis.Introduction to linear optimization, volume 6. Athena scientific Belmont, MA, 1997

    work page 1997

  33. [33]

    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

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    Arbitrary bound- ary conditions and constraints in quantum algorithms for differential equations via penalty projections.arXiv preprint 26 arXiv:2506.21751, 2025

    Philipp Schleich, Tyler Kharazi, Xiangyu Li, Jin-Peng Liu, Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, and Nathan Wiebe. Arbitrary bound- ary conditions and constraints in quantum algorithms for differential equations via penalty projections.arXiv preprint 26 arXiv:2506.21751, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    An efficient quantum algorithm for simulating polynomial dynamical systems.Quantum Information Processing, 23(3):105, 2024

    Amit Surana, Abeynaya Gnanasekaran, and Tuhin Sahai. An efficient quantum algorithm for simulating polynomial dynamical systems.Quantum Information Processing, 23(3):105, 2024

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    Efficient quantum algorithm for solving differential equations with Fourier nonlinearity via Koopman linearization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.06488, 2025

    Judd Katz, Gopikrishnan Muraleedharan, and Abhijeet Alase. Efficient quantum algorithm for solving differential equations with Fourier nonlinearity via Koopman linearization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.06488, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

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

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    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

  39. [39]

    Divergence-free algorithms for solving nonlinear differential equations on quantum computers.Physical Review Research, 8(1):013057, 2026

    Katsuhiro Endo and Kazuaki Z Takahashi. Divergence-free algorithms for solving nonlinear differential equations on quantum computers.Physical Review Research, 8(1):013057, 2026

    work page 2026

  40. [40]

    Novikau and I

    Ivan Novikau and Ilon Joseph. Globalizing the Carleman linear embedding method for nonlinear dynamics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.15715, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Jennings, K

    David Jennings, Kamil Korzekwa, Matteo Lostaglio, Richard Ashworth, Emanuele Marsili, and Stephen Rolston. An end-to-end quantum algorithm for nonlinear fluid dynamics with bounded quantum advantage.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.03758, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

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

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

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    Hamiltonian simulation with nearly optimal dependence on all parameters

    Dominic W Berry, Andrew M Childs, and Robin Kothari. Hamiltonian simulation with nearly optimal dependence on all parameters. In2015 IEEE 56th annual symposium on foundations of computer science, pages 792–809. IEEE, 2015

    work page 2015

  44. [44]

    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

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    The cost of solving linear differential equations on a quantum computer: fast-forwarding to explicit resource counts.Quantum, 8:1553, 2024

    David Jennings, Matteo Lostaglio, Robert B Lowrie, Sam Pallister, and Andrew T Sornborger. The cost of solving linear differential equations on a quantum computer: fast-forwarding to explicit resource counts.Quantum, 8:1553, 2024

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Fast-forwarding quantum algorithms for linear dissipative differential equations.Quantum, 10:1986, 2026

    Dong An, Akwum Onwunta, and Gengzhi Yang. Fast-forwarding quantum algorithms for linear dissipative differential equations.Quantum, 10:1986, 2026

    work page 1986

  47. [47]

    Quantum Differential Equation Solvers with Low State Preparation Cost: Eliminating the Time Dependence in Dissipative Equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.15170, 2025

    Gengzhi Yang, Akwum Onwunta, and Dong An. Quantum Differential Equation Solvers with Low State Preparation Cost: Eliminating the Time Dependence in Dissipative Equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.15170, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Succinct description and efficient simulation of non-Markovian open quantum systems

    Xiantao Li and Chunhao Wang. Succinct description and efficient simulation of non-Markovian open quantum systems. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 401(1):147–183, 2023

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    Adapting the range of validity for the carleman linearization.Advances in Radio Science, 14:51–54, 2016

    Harry Weber and Wolfgang Mathis. Adapting the range of validity for the carleman linearization.Advances in Radio Science, 14:51–54, 2016

    work page 2016

  50. [50]

    World Scientific, 1991

    Krzysztof Kowalski and Willi-Hans Steeb.Nonlinear Dynamical Systems and Carleman Linearization. World Scientific, 1991. [50]https://github.com/zkjiaumich/pivot-shifted-carleman

    work page 1991

  51. [51]

    PhD thesis, University of Bremen, 2005

    Elmar Plischke.Transient effects of linear dynamical systems. PhD thesis, University of Bremen, 2005. Appendix A: Oracle construction for the shifted system (Proof of Lemma II.4) In this section, we provide a more detailed discussion of Lemma II.4. We assume block encoding oracles for the original coefficient matricesF 0, F1, F2 with normalization coeffic...

    work page 2005

  52. [52]

    Lemma B.1(General system: short time bound of∥v(t)∥).Considerv(t)satisfying Eq.(22)

    Convergence of the Carleman linearization We first prove Proposition IV.4 using the following bound for the solutionv(t). Lemma B.1(General system: short time bound of∥v(t)∥).Considerv(t)satisfying Eq.(22). LetQ=Iand choose the pivots=x(0). Thenv(0) = 0. Moreover, there existst ′ >0such that ∥v(t)∥ ≤1, t≤T≤t ′.(B1) In particular, one may choose t′ = 1 ∥F2...

    work page

  53. [53]

    Quantum solvers for linear differential equations Next, we incorporate the error from the QLSA based quantum solver for linear differential equations with the corresponding query complexity. 30 Proof of Proposition IV.8.The complexity for differential systems remains unstable after pivot shift can be obtained by applying the quantum solver for linear diff...

    work page