Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 88 references

From Nonlinear Stochastic Differential Equations to Quantum Channels: The Kolmogorov--Lindblad Mapping

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that, under flow regularity and domain assumptions, the statistics of a nonlinear SDE are exactly the position diagonal of a state evolving by a Lindblad equation.

desk verdict A correct and useful exact mapping from nonlinear SDE laws to Lindblad dynamics, with one load-bearing regularity gap that is closable but must be closed. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09903 v1 pith:R4GQGQ6K submitted 2026-08-10 quant-ph

Hsuan-Cheng Wu , Xiantao Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 60H1060H1535Q8481P68
keywords Kolmogorov–LindbladmappingstochasticdifferentialequationsFokker–PlanckequationLindbladhalf-densitySchrödingerquantumchannelGalerkindiscretization
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 aims to establish an exact bridge between classical stochastic dynamics and open quantum systems: for a broad class of nonlinear stochastic differential equations, the probability law can be encoded as the position diagonal of a density operator that evolves by a Lindblad equation. The construction works by taking, for each Brownian realization, the square root of the transported probability density; this half-density satisfies a linear stochastic Schrödinger equation, and averaging the resulting pure states produces a completely positive, trace-preserving channel. On the diagonal, the channel reproduces the Fokker–Planck density exactly, so expectations of bounded functions become quantum traces without the unknown normalization required by direct amplitude encoding. Two-time correlations and, by iteration, ordered multi-time correlations obey exact quantum regression identities, and a structure-preserving Galerkin projection keeps the finite-dimensional equation in Lindblad form. If the theorems hold, the main obstruction to quantum simulation of nonlinear SDEs shifts from representing the nonlinearity to approximation and coherent operator access.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pathwise half-density $\psi_t(x)=\psi_0((\Phi^\omega_t)^{-1}(x))\,|\det D(\Phi^\omega_t)^{-1}(x)|^{1/2}$, whose modulus square is the noise-conditional density. Its generator is $K_V\psi=V\cdot\nabla\psi+\frac{1}{2}(\nabla\cdot V)\psi$; the added divergence term is the square-root Jacobian correction that makes each Brownian realization act unitarily on $L^2$. With $H_j=-iK_{V_j}$, the Itô correction of the stochastic Schrödinger equation turns the Brownian quadratic variation into the double-commutator dissipator, and the diagonal map $D$ plus the multiplication-operator identity $E^\dagger_t(M_f)=M_{P_t f}$ carry the exact intertwining with the classical semigroup.

What would settle it

Take a globally Lipschitz nonlinear diffusion, for instance $dX_t=\sin(X_t)\,dt+dW_t$, and prepare two trace-one encodings with the same initial position density $p_0$ but different phases; evolve both under the KLM equation for a time where an independent Fokker–Planck reference is accurate. Any difference in $\mathrm{Tr}(M_\varphi\Gamma(t))$ for a bounded $\varphi$, or any deviation of the reconstructed diagonal from the reference density, would falsify the claimed exact intertwining.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is Theorem 2. For an Itô SDE $dX_t=b(X_t)\,dt+\sigma(X_t)\,dW_t$ rewritten in Stratonovich form with vector fields $V_0,\dots,V_m$, define the Hermitian half-density operators $H_j=-i(V_j\cdot\nabla+\frac{1}{2}\nabla\cdot V_j)$ on $L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$. If $\psi_t=U^\omega_t\psi_0$ is the pathwise half-density transported by the stochastic flow $\Phi^\omega_t$, then $\Gamma(t)=\mathbb{E}_\omega[|\psi_t\rangle\langle\psi_t|]$ obeys $$\frac{d\Gamma}{dt}=-i[H_0,\Gamma]-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^m[H_j,[H_j,\Gamma]],$$ and its position diagonal is exactly the Fokker–Planck density, $D\Gamma(t)=p(t,\cdot)$, so $E[\varphi(X_t)]=\mathrm{Tr}(M_\varphi\Gamma(t))$. The paper further claims exact forward and backward semigroup intertwining, an exact quantum regression formula for two-time correlations, a mixed-unitary structure for the channel, and a Galerkin projection that keeps the finite-dimensional equation in Lindblad form. Classical diffusion enters as decoherence generated by the Hermitian jump operators $H_j$, and the zero-noise limit is deterministic unitary transport of the half-density.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the SDE's vector fields generate a global, two-sided stochastic flow of smooth diffeomorphisms, with all initial points moved by the same Brownian realization and with enough far-field decay to make the half-density operators self-adjoint; note that the paper's own numerical examples use a cubic force and a quadratic drift that do not satisfy the stated global-Lipschitz sufficient condition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Bounded classical observables of the SDE become ordinary quantum expectations $\mathrm{Tr}(M_\varphi\Gamma(t))$ with no unknown time-dependent normalization, so the normalization mismatch of direct amplitude encoding disappears.
  • Every trace-one initial encoding with the same position density produces the same classical law and the same multiplication-observable statistics; off-diagonal coherences are a gauge freedom for the law.
  • Two-time correlations obey the exact regression identity $\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1(X_t)\varphi_2(X_s)]=\mathrm{Tr}[M_{\varphi_1}E_{t-s}(M_{\varphi_2}\Gamma(s))]$, and recursive application yields ordered multi-time correlations.
  • The structure-preserving Galerkin projection yields a finite-dimensional mixed-unitary, completely positive, trace-preserving channel before any quantum simulator is applied.
  • In the deterministic limit $m=0$ the Lindblad equation reduces to unitary Hamiltonian evolution for the half-density, recovering the classical transport lift.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the continuum identities are exact, then any mismatch between the projected channel's diagonal and an accurate Fokker–Planck reference is attributable to Galerkin, quadrature, or time-stepping error; the experiments can therefore be read as a clean benchmark for approximation spaces and operators.
  • For SDEs whose Stratonovich diffusion fields commute, the dissipator becomes a Gaussian twirl of unitary translations and the channel may be simulable more cheaply than generic Lindblad simulation; the paper mentions Gaussian twirls but does not exploit this into an algorithm.
  • The backward intertwining invites a goal-oriented weak-error analysis: regularity of the solution to the backward Kolmogorov equation, rather than strong pathwise regularity of the half-density, should control observable errors. The paper sketches this direction but leaves the estimates open.
  • A direct hardware test of the gauge freedom would prepare two different phase or purification encodings of the same initial density and verify identical statistics for multiplication observables; the paper does not perform such a test.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a Kolmogorov–Lindblad mapping (KLM) that lifts the pathwise probability density of an Itô SDE to a half-density in L², shows that each Brownian realization generates a unitary half-density flow, and proves that averaging the resulting pure states yields a Lindblad equation whose position diagonal equals the Fokker–Planck density. It further establishes forward and backward intertwining between the KLM semigroup and the Kolmogorov semigroups, an exact quantum-regression identity for two-time correlations, and a structure-preserving Galerkin projection that retains Lindblad form at finite dimension. Numerical tests on double-well Langevin dynamics and noisy Lorenz–63 are compared with independent Fokker–Planck references.

Significance. If the stated assumptions are met, this is a clean and potentially useful exact law-level embedding: it avoids the L¹/L² normalization mismatch of direct amplitude encoding, produces a CPTP channel before any quantum-backend choice, and gives a concrete path from classical SDE statistics to Lindblad simulation. Strengths of the manuscript include a self-contained derivation with no parameters fitted to the reference solution, an explicit separation of approximation cost from coherent-access cost, and numerical comparisons against independent Fokker–Planck solvers with reported extrapolation uncertainties.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section II (standing assumptions) and Eqs. (64b), (82)] Theorems 1–3 and Corollary 1 are proved only under the standing assumptions of Section II, whose only stated sufficient condition is global Lipschitz vector fields with linear growth. The paper's headline examples violate this: Eq. (64b) contains the cubic term -q_t^3+q_t and Eq. (82) contains quadratic products x_t y_t and x_t z_t, neither of which is globally Lipschitz. The manuscript does not verify the global C¹ two-sided stochastic flow for these coefficients, nor the domain/integrability condition E∫_0^T (‖H_0ψ_t‖² + Σ_j‖H_jψ_t‖²) dt < ∞ used for the Hilbert-space Itô formula in Appendix B. This gap is load-bearing because the abstract advertises the mapping for general nonlinear stochastic dynamics and the numerical sections apply the theorems to exactly these examples. I ask for explicit verification for the tested models, for instance via Lyapunov functions and a priori weighted-Sobolev estimates, or a restatement of the hypotheses so that the theorems are not stronger than their verified domain.
  2. [Appendix D] Appendix D ends with the sentence 'The preceding calculation is summarized by the following theorem,' but no theorem is stated. The Galerkin residual estimate in this appendix is the stated basis for the weak-bias condition (59) used in Theorem 4, so the missing statement is a missing piece of support rather than a typographical issue. Please supply the theorem with its precise hypotheses and proof, or delete the sentence and clearly label the appendix as an informal derivation sketch.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (24)–(26)] The sentence after Eq. (24) refers to 'the generator on the right-hand side of (26)' before Eq. (26) has been displayed; the equation order or cross-reference should be adjusted.
  2. [Eq. (52)] The symbol bΦ_Q is reused from the mass-matrix transformation, and its role in the quadrature-level Galerkin matrix H_{j,h}^{(Q)} should be spelled out so that the reader can distinguish the raw basis, the isometry, and the sampled coefficient matrices.
  3. [Appendix C] The notation P_t^* is used in the proof of Theorem 3 before its definition has been fully separated from the later display; a one-sentence definition immediately before the proof would improve readability.
  4. [Section IV.C] The convergence-rate fits in Eqs. (92)–(93) use only five cutoff values each; the authors correctly call them preasymptotic, but the discussion should state explicitly that these fits are not used as a substitute for an asymptotic error bound in any of the theorem statements.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the KLM channel is constructed from the SDE coefficients, and the Fokker–Planck diagonal and regression identity are derived from the pathwise half-density definition, not imported from a fit or self-citation.

full rationale

The central claim (Theorem 2) is a self-contained construction. For each Brownian realization the paper defines the stochastic flow Φ^ω, the pathwise density p^ω by pushforward, and the half-density ψ_t by the square-root pullback formula (17); the identity |ψ_t|² = p^ω is then algebraic. Averaging the projectors |ψ_t⟩⟨ψ_t| gives Γ(t), and the Lindblad generator (26) follows from the Hilbert-space Itô product rule in Appendix B, a standard computation given the standing assumptions. The diagonal identity DΓ(t) = p(t,·) follows from E[p^ω] = p and |ψ_t|² = p^ω, not from fitting any parameter to the Fokker–Planck solution. Theorem 3's intertwining D E_t = P*_t D is proved from the same flow representation and the definition of the operators H_j, and Corollary 1 is a direct consequence of the Markov property plus backward intertwining. In the numerical experiments, no parameter is fitted to the reference data; convergence is measured against independently discretized Fokker–Planck calculations. The only author-overlapping citation (Ref. [33]) is contextual and is not used in any proof. The gap between the stated sufficient condition (global Lipschitz vector fields) and the non-globally-Lipschitz test examples (cubic double-well force and quadratic Lorenz drift) is a genuine conditional-correctness risk, but it concerns the verification of the theorem's hypotheses rather than an input-output equivalence; it does not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The construction rests on standard stochastic-flow theory (Kunita), the half-density L^2 lift (Applebaum), and asserted domain hypotheses for unbounded operators; no fitted parameters enter the derivation, and no entities are invented. The main ledger item is the domain-assumption set, which is not verified for the paper's own non-Lipschitz examples.

free parameters (2)
  • Hermite basis scales and centers for the numerical tests = (ℓ_q,ℓ_v)=(0.35,0.50), centers (0,0) for the double well; Lorenz centers c=(-8,-8,27), scales ℓ=(1.5√2 each)
    Hand-chosen approximation-space parameters (Section IV); standard tuning that affects convergence constants, not fitted to the Fokker-Planck reference, and not part of the continuum claim.
  • Empirical exponential convergence-rate constants (rates c and prefactors C) in Eqs. (92)-(93) = c≈0.40 (P(qT>0)), 0.39 (E[qT]), 0.43 (Lorenz E[XT]); prefactors C_P,ν, C_q,ν, 0.125 not further tabulated
    Fitted post hoc to the paper's own measured errors over five cutoffs; explicitly labeled a preasymptotic summary, descriptive only, not used to define the method or to validate the mapping.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The SDE generates a global C^1 stochastic flow of diffeomorphisms Phi^omega_t; each vector field V_0,...,V_m has a complete deterministic flow (two-sided).
    Section II 'standing assumptions' and Theorem 1. Required to define the pathwise density p^omega_t by pushforward and to make the half-density propagator U^omega_t unitary. The stated sufficient condition (global Lipschitz, linear growth) is not met by the cubic double-well or quadratic Lorenz drifts used in the numerical tests.
  • domain assumption Far-field decay and operator-domain hypotheses ensure skew-symmetry of K_V (zero boundary term), self-adjoint realizations of H_j, and validity of the Hilbert-space Ito formula for |psi><psi| and for trace-class-valued processes.
    Section II ('sufficient far-field decay'), Lemma 1, and Appendices A-B ('on the common test domain'). Asserted rather than fully proven.
  • standard math Markov property of the SDE solution and stationarity/independence of Brownian increments.
    Used for the semigroup property of E_t (Appendix A), the intertwining theorem, and the two-time regression Corollary 1 (Appendix C).
  • domain assumption A priori regularity sup_t E||psi(t)||^2_{H^s} ≤ C ||psi_0||^2_{H^s} and the mapping/inverse estimates (D7) for the trial space.
    Appendix D, assumed to derive the O(h^(s-2)) Galerkin error bound; stated as conditional and not verified for the specific examples.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Nonlinear Stochastic Differential Equations to Quantum Channels: The Kolmogorov--Lindblad Mapping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R4GQGQ6K

@misc{pith2026260809903,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Nonlinear Stochastic Differential Equations to Quantum Channels: The Kolmogorov--Lindblad Mapping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R4GQGQ6K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09903}
}
abstract

Nonlinear stochastic differential equations (SDEs) underlie molecular modeling and drug discovery, quantitative finance, stochastic learning, and uncertainty quantification. Their expectations, event probabilities, and time correlations are therefore natural targets for quantum computation, but nonlinear drift and averaging over noise realizations obstruct a direct quantum representation. We develop an exact \emph{Kolmogorov--Lindblad mapping} (KLM) at the level of the probability law, encoded natively as a trace-one quantum density operator. For each Brownian realization, the pathwise density admits a half-density whose evolution is a stochastic Schr\"odinger equation. Averaging the associated pure states yields a Lindblad equation for $\Gamma(t)$ whose diagonal kernel is exactly the Fokker--Planck density, $p(t,x)=\Gamma(t;x,x)$, with classical diffusion represented by decoherence through Hermitian jump operators. Statistical observables become quantum expectations without the unknown time-dependent normalization introduced by direct amplitude encoding of the density, and classical two-time correlations admit an exact quantum regression formula. A structure-preserving Galerkin projection retains the Lindblad form at finite dimension, placing classical SDEs and open quantum dynamics on the same quantum-native computational footing. Numerical experiments for double-well Langevin dynamics and noisy Lorenz--63 exhibit rapid convergence of statistical observables. KLM thus provides a mathematically controlled path from general nonlinear stochastic dynamics to quantum channels, while isolating function approximation and coherent operator access as the remaining determinants of algorithmic efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09903 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Localized left-well Langevin experiment at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Biased bimodal Langevin experiment at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Noisy Lorenz–63 experiment at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    On ann 2 grid, ∆q= 6/n, ∆v= 10/n, and hFP = max{∆q,∆v}

    Reference and Galerkin discretizations To examine accuracy, we use an independent Fokker– Planck calculation on the box (q, v)∈[−3,3]×[−5,5] 14 with cell-centered uniform grids of 128 2, 192 2, and 256 2 cells. On ann 2 grid, ∆q= 6/n, ∆v= 10/n, and hFP = max{∆q,∆v}. A second-order symmetric split- ting separates velocity diffusion, friction, potential for...

  2. [2]

    Withψ L 0 = p pL 0 , we set χK(0) = Φ† KψL 0 ∥ΠKψL 0 ∥L2 , GK(0) =|χ K(0)⟩ ⟨χK(0)|

    Experiment I: localized left-well ensemble In the first test, we choose the initial density as pL 0 (q, v) =N(q;−1,0.25 2)N(v; 0,0.50 2),(77) whereN(x;µ, s 2) denotes the normalized Gaussian den- sity with meanµand variances 2. Withψ L 0 = p pL 0 , we set χK(0) = Φ† KψL 0 ∥ΠKψL 0 ∥L2 , GK(0) =|χ K(0)⟩ ⟨χK(0)|. This is a finite-time reaction or switching e...

  3. [3]

    (79) This represents an uncertain population of two conforma- tions, chemical states, or metastable material configura- tions

    Experiment II: biased bimodal ensemble The second experiment uses the same SDE, parame- ters, basis, and final time, but starts from a biased mix- ture of packets in the two wells: pmix 0 = 0.65p− + 0.35p+, p±(q, v) =N(q;±1,0.25 2)N(v; 0,0.50 2). (79) This represents an uncertain population of two conforma- tions, chemical states, or metastable material c...

  4. [4]

    G. A. Pavliotis,Stochastic Processes and Applications: Diffusion Processes, the Fokker–Planck and Langevin Equations (Springer, 2014)

    2014

  5. [5]

    Zaloj and R

    V. Zaloj and R. Elber, Parallel computations of molecular dynamics trajectories using the stochastic path approach, Computer Physics Communications128, 118 (2000)

    2000

  6. [6]

    N. G. van Kampen,Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry, Vol. 1 (Elsevier, 1992)

    1992

  7. [7]

    S. B. Pope,Turbulent flows(Cambridge university press, 2000)

    2000

  8. [8]

    R. E. Kalman and R. S. Bucy, New results in linear filtering and prediction theory, Journal of Basic Engineering83, 95 (1961)

    1961

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    S¨ arkk¨ a and A

    S. S¨ arkk¨ a and A. Solin,Applied Stochastic Differential Equations, Institute of Mathematical Statistics Textbooks, Vol. 10 (Cambridge University Press, 2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Black and M

    F. Black and M. Scholes, The pricing of options and corporate liabilities, Journal of political economy81, 637 (1973)

    1973

  3. [11]

    Ermoliev and R

    Y. Ermoliev and R. J.-B. Wets, eds.,Numerical Techniques for Stochastic Optimization, Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, Vol. 10 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988)

    1988

  4. [12]

    Øksendal,Stochastic Differential Equations: An Introduction with Applications, 6th ed., Universitext (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003)

    B. Øksendal,Stochastic Differential Equations: An Introduction with Applications, 6th ed., Universitext (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003)

    2003

  5. [13]

    P. E. Kloeden and E. Platen,Numerical Solution of Stochastic Differential Equations, Applications of Mathematics, Vol. 23 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992)

    1992

  6. [14]

    M. B. Giles, Multilevel monte carlo path simulation, Operations research56, 607 (2008)

    2008

  7. [15]

    Montanaro, Quantum speedup of monte carlo methods, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences471, 20150301 (2015)

    A. Montanaro, Quantum speedup of monte carlo methods, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences471, 20150301 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    D. An, N. Linden, J.-P. Liu, A. Montanaro, C. Shao, and J. Wang, Quantum-accelerated multilevel monte carlo methods for stochastic differential equations in mathematical finance, Quantum5, 481 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Tennie and L

    F. Tennie and L. Magri, Integration of the Fokker–Planck equation on quantum computers: A new path to modelling nonlinear dynamics, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences481, 20250016 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and Y. Yu, Quantum simulation of the Fokker–Planck equation via Schr¨ odingerization, Communications in Computational Physics39, 969 (2026)

    2026

  11. [19]

    Gnanasekaran, A

    A. Gnanasekaran, A. Surana, and T. Sahai, Efficient quantum algorithms for nonlinear stochastic dynamical systems, in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 02 (2023) pp. 66–75

    2023

  12. [20]

    Kunita,Stochastic Flows and Stochastic Differential Equations(Cambridge University Press, 1990)

    H. Kunita,Stochastic Flows and Stochastic Differential Equations(Cambridge University Press, 1990)

    1990

  13. [21]

    Joseph, Koopman–von neumann approach to quantum simulation of nonlinear classical dynamics, Phys

    I. Joseph, Koopman–von neumann approach to quantum simulation of nonlinear classical dynamics, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043102 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Applebaum, An operator theoretic approach to stochastic flows on manifolds, S´ eminaire de Probabilit´ es26, 514 (1992)

    D. Applebaum, An operator theoretic approach to stochastic flows on manifolds, S´ eminaire de Probabilit´ es26, 514 (1992)

    1992

  15. [23]

    Y. Gan, H. Alipanah, J. Cheng, Z. Wu, G. Li, J. J. Mendoza-Arenas, P. Givi, M. R. Malik, B. J. McDermott, and J. Liu, Provably efficient quantum algorithms for solving nonlinear differential equations using multiple bosonic modes coupled with qubits (2025), arXiv:2511.09939 [quant-ph]

    2025

  16. [24]

    Watanabe, H

    M. Watanabe, H. Nishi, T. Kosugi, S. Hidaka, R. Sakurai, and Y.-i. Matsushita, End-to-end molecular dynamics with a langevin thermostat on quantum circuits (2026), arXiv:2605.30143 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Watanabe, H

    M. Watanabe, H. Nishi, T. Kosugi, S. Hidaka, R. Sakurai, and Y.-i. Matsushita, Koopman–von neumann molecular dynamics for green–kubo transport coefficients (2026), arXiv:2605.30142 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  18. [26]

    J.-P. Liu, H. Øie Kolden, H. K. Krovi, N. F. Loureiro, K. Trivisa, and A. M. Childs, Efficient quantum algorithm for dissipative nonlinear differential equations, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118, e2026805118 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    H.-C. Wu, J. Wang, and X. Li, Quantum algorithms for nonlinear dynamics: Revisiting carleman linearization with no dissipative conditions, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing47, A943 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    K. Wang, Z. Jia, S. Veerapaneni, and Z. Ding, Quantum algorithms for nonlinear differential equations via pivot-shifted carleman linearization (2026), arXiv:2605.20071 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Jennings, K

    D. Jennings, K. Korzekwa, M. Lostaglio, A. T. Sornborger, Y. Subasi, and G. Wang, Quantum algorithms for general nonlinear dynamics based on the carleman embedding (2025), arXiv:2509.07155 [quant-ph]. 28

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    An and K

    D. An and K. Trivisa, Quantum algorithms for linear and non-linear fractional reaction-diffusion equations, Quantum10, 1969 (2026)

    2026

  23. [31]

    Brustle and N

    N. Brustle and N. Wiebe, Quantum and classical algorithms for nonlinear unitary dynamics, Quantum9, 1741 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    X. Li, A. B. Catli, H. K. Lim, M. Pocrnic, D. An, J.-P. Liu, and N. Wiebe, Efficient quantum simulation for nonlinear stochastic differential equations (2026), arXiv:2603.12398 [quant-ph]

    2026

  25. [33]

    Shi and X

    D. Shi and X. Yang, Koopman spectral linearization vs. carleman linearization: A computational comparison study, Mathematics12, 10.3390/math12142156 (2024)

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Jennings, K

    D. Jennings, K. Korzekwa, M. Lostaglio, and G. Wang, Quantum koopman algorithms (2026), arXiv:2605.19054 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. Byrne, M. Zayats, and S. Zhuk, Quantum algorithms for stochastic nonlinear differential equations (2026), arXiv:2606.08349 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Wu and X

    H.-C. Wu and X. Li, Universal dilation of linear itˆ o sdes: Quantum trajectories and Lindblad simulation of second moments (2026), arXiv:2601.05928 [quant-ph]

    2026

  29. [37]

    A. D. Fokker, Die mittlere energie rotierender elektrischer dipole im strahlungsfeld, Annalen der Physik348, 810 (1914)

    1914

  30. [38]

    M. Planck, ¨Uber einen satz der statistischen dynamik und seine erweiterung in der quantentheorie, Sitzungsberichte der K¨ oniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Physikalisch-Mathematische Klasse , 324 (1917)

    1917

  31. [39]

    A. N. Kolmogoroff, ¨Uber die analytischen methoden in der wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung, Mathematische Annalen104, 415 (1931)

    1931

  32. [40]

    Da Prato and J

    G. Da Prato and J. Zabczyk,Stochastic Equations in Infinite Dimensions, 2nd ed., Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, Vol. 152 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014)

    2014

  33. [41]

    Tronci and I

    C. Tronci and I. Joseph, Koopman wavefunctions and clebsch variables in vlasov–maxwell kinetic theory, Journal of Plasma Physics87, 835870402 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, 2002)

    2002

  35. [43]

    Gorini, A

    V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely positive dynamical semigroups of n-level systems, Journal of Mathematical Physics17, 821 (1976)

    1976

  36. [44]

    Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Communications in mathematical physics48, 119 (1976)

    G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Communications in mathematical physics48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  37. [45]

    Watrous, Mixing doubly stochastic quantum channels with the completely depolarizing channel, Quantum Information and Computation9, 406 (2009)

    J. Watrous, Mixing doubly stochastic quantum channels with the completely depolarizing channel, Quantum Information and Computation9, 406 (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    C. D.-Y. Lee and J. Watrous, Detecting mixed-unitary quantum channels is NP-hard, Quantum4, 253 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Lax, Formal theory of quantum fluctuations from a driven state, Physical Review129, 2342 (1963)

    M. Lax, Formal theory of quantum fluctuations from a driven state, Physical Review129, 2342 (1963)

    1963

  40. [48]

    B. O. Koopman, Hamiltonian systems and transformation in hilbert space, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 17, 315 (1931)

    1931

  41. [49]

    von Neumann, Zur operatorenmethode in der klassischen mechanik, Annals of Mathematics33, 587 (1932)

    J. von Neumann, Zur operatorenmethode in der klassischen mechanik, Annals of Mathematics33, 587 (1932)

    1932

  42. [50]

    Kharazi, A

    T. Kharazi, A. M. Alkadri, K. K. Mandadapu, and K. B. Whaley, A sublinear-time quantum algorithm for high-dimensional reaction rates (2026), arXiv:2601.15523 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Shang, N

    Z.-X. Shang, N. Guo, P. Rebentrost, A. Aspuru-Guzik, T. Li, and Q. Zhao, Fast-forwardable Lindbladians imply quantum phase estimation (2025), arXiv:2510.06759 [quant-ph]

    2025

  44. [52]

    Gily´ en, Y

    A. Gily´ en, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. 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 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2019) pp. 193–204

    2019

  45. [53]

    Chakraborty, A

    S. Chakraborty, A. Gily´ en, and S. Jeffery, The power of block-encoded matrix powers: improved regression techniques via faster hamiltonian simulation (2018), arXiv:1804.01973 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Cleve and C

    R. Cleve and C. Wang, Efficient quantum algorithms for simulating Lindblad evolution, in44th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2017), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 80 (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum f¨...

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Z. Ding, X. Li, and L. Lin, Simulating open quantum systems using hamiltonian simulations, PRX Quantum5, 020332 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    Li and C

    X. Li and C. Wang, Simulating markovian open quantum systems using higher-order series expansion, in50th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2023), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 261 (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibn...

    2023

  49. [57]

    C.-F. Chen, M. J. Kastoryano, F. G. Brand˜ ao, and A. Gily´ en, Quantum thermal state preparation (2023), arXiv:2303.18224 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Luo and S

    X. Luo and S. S.-T. Yau, Hermite spectral method with hyperbolic cross approximations to high-dimensional parabolic PDEs, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis51, 3186 (2013)

    2013

  51. [59]

    Leobacher, F

    G. Leobacher, F. Pillichshammer, and A. Ebert, Tractability ofL 2-approximation and integration in weighted hermite spaces of finite smoothness, Journal of Complexity78, 101768 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    Irrgeher, P

    C. Irrgeher, P. Kritzer, F. Pillichshammer, and H. Wo´ zniakowski, Approximation in hermite spaces of smooth functions, Journal of Approximation Theory207, 98 (2016)

    2016

  53. [61]

    Irrgeher, P

    C. Irrgeher, P. Kritzer, F. Pillichshammer, and H. Wo´ zniakowski, Tractability of multivariate approximation defined over hilbert spaces with exponential weights, Journal of Approximation Theory207, 301 (2016), arXiv:1502.03286

    2016 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Y. Chen, J. Hoskins, Y. Khoo, and M. Lindsey, Committor functions via tensor networks, Journal of Computational Physics472, 111646 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    Tang and L

    X. Tang and L. Ying, Solving high-dimensional fokker–planck equation with functional hierarchical tensor, Journal of 29 Computational Physics511, 113110 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    Leimkuhler and C

    B. Leimkuhler and C. Matthews,Molecular Dynamics: With Deterministic and Stochastic Numerical Methods, Interdisci- plinary Applied Mathematics, Vol. 39 (Springer, 2015)

    2015

  57. [65]

    Schlick,Molecular Modeling and Simulation: An Interdisciplinary Guide, 2nd ed., Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics (Springer, 2010)

    T. Schlick,Molecular Modeling and Simulation: An Interdisciplinary Guide, 2nd ed., Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics (Springer, 2010)

    2010

  58. [66]

    H. A. Kramers, Brownian motion in a field of force and the diffusion model of chemical reactions, physica7, 284 (1940)

    1940

  59. [67]

    H¨ anggi, P

    P. H¨ anggi, P. Talkner, and M. Borkovec, Reaction-rate theory: fifty years after kramers, Reviews of modern physics62, 251 (1990)

    1990

  60. [68]

    Risken, Fokker–planck equation, inThe Fokker–Planck Equation: Methods of Solution and Applications, Springer Series in Synergetics, Vol

    H. Risken, Fokker–planck equation, inThe Fokker–Planck Equation: Methods of Solution and Applications, Springer Series in Synergetics, Vol. 18 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1996) pp. 63–95, 2nd ed

    1996

  61. [69]

    E. N. Lorenz, Deterministic nonperiodic flow, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences20, 130 (1963)

    1963

  62. [70]

    Wigner, On the quantum correction for thermodynamic equilibrium, Physical Review40, 749 (1932)

    E. Wigner, On the quantum correction for thermodynamic equilibrium, Physical Review40, 749 (1932)

    1932

  63. [71]

    J. E. Moyal, Quantum mechanics as a statistical theory, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 45, 99 (1949)

    1949

  64. [72]

    Lions and T

    P.-L. Lions and T. Paul, Sur les mesures de Wigner, Revista Matem´ atica Iberoamericana9, 553 (1993)

    1993

  65. [73]

    Giannakis, Quantum mechanics and data assimilation, Physical Review E100, 032207 (2019)

    D. Giannakis, Quantum mechanics and data assimilation, Physical Review E100, 032207 (2019)

    2019

  66. [74]

    Giannakis, A

    D. Giannakis, A. Ourmazd, P. Pfeffer, J. Schumacher, and J. S lawi´ nska, Embedding classical dynamics in a quantum computer, Physical Review A105, 052404 (2022)

    2022

  67. [75]

    Bravyi, R

    S. Bravyi, R. Manson-Sawko, M. Zayats, and S. Zhuk, Quantum simulation of a noisy classical nonlinear dynamics (2025), arXiv:2507.06198 [quant-ph]

    2025

  68. [76]

    D. An, A. M. Childs, and L. Lin, Quantum algorithm for linear non-unitary dynamics with near-optimal dependence on all parameters, Communications in Mathematical Physics407, 19 (2026)

    2026

  69. [77]

    Szegedy, Quantum speed-up of markov chain based algorithms, inProceedings of the 45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science(2004) pp

    M. Szegedy, Quantum speed-up of markov chain based algorithms, inProceedings of the 45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science(2004) pp. 32–41

    2004

  70. [78]

    Wocjan and A

    P. Wocjan and A. Abeyesinghe, Speed-up via quantum sampling, Physical Review A78, 042336 (2008)

    2008

  71. [79]

    R. D. Somma, S. Boixo, H. Barnum, and E. Knill, Quantum simulations of classical annealing processes, Physical Review Letters101, 130504 (2008)

    2008

  72. [80]

    Apers and A

    S. Apers and A. Sarlette, Quantum fast-forwarding: Markov chains and graph property testing, Quantum Information and Computation19, 181 (2019)

    2019

  73. [81]

    Claudon, J.-P

    B. Claudon, J.-P. Piquemal, and P. Monmarch´ e, Quantum speedup for nonreversible markov chains, Nature Communica- tions16, 10732 (2025)

    2025

  74. [82]

    Pinaud, Classical limit for a system of non-linear random Schr¨ odinger equations, Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis209, 321 (2013)

    O. Pinaud, Classical limit for a system of non-linear random Schr¨ odinger equations, Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis209, 321 (2013)

    2013

  75. [83]

    Gomez, O

    C. Gomez, O. Pinaud, and L. Ryzhik, Radiative transfer with long-range interactions: Regularity and asymptotics, Mul- tiscale Modeling & Simulation15, 1048 (2017), arXiv:1511.01943

    2017 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Hern´ andez, D

    F. Hern´ andez, D. Ranard, and C. J. Riedel, Classical correspondence beyond the Ehrenfest time for open quantum systems with general Lindbladians, Communications in Mathematical Physics406, 4 (2025)

    2025

  77. [85]

    Li and C

    X. Li and C. Wang, Quantum regression theory and efficient computation of response functions for non-markovian open systems (2025), arXiv:2510.05472 [quant-ph]

    2025

  78. [86]

    Anton, D

    R. Anton, D. Cohen, S. Larsson, and X. Wang, Full discretization of semilinear stochastic wave equations driven by multiplicative noise, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis54, 1093 (2016)

    2016

  79. [87]

    C. Chen, J. Hong, and L. Ji, Mean-square convergence of a symplectic local discontinuous Galerkin method applied to stochastic linear Schr¨ odinger equation, IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis37, 1041 (2017)

    2017

  80. [88]

    U. S. Fjordholm, K. H. Karlsen, and P. H. C. Pang, Convergent finite difference schemes for stochastic transport equations, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis63, 149 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.