Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Shifting the distribution around Maxwellian lets Carleman embedding of Vlasov–Poisson converge at physically allowed collision frequencies.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Shifting the Vlasov–Poisson distribution by a Maxwellian and minimizing over Lyapunov matrices extends Carleman embedding convergence to physically allowed collision frequencies for Landau-damping-type initial data.

T0 review reviewed 2026-07-31 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid incremental advance: Maxwellian shift plus Lyapunov bounds put Landau-type Carleman VP inside physical ν≲1; two-stream and time-resolved extraction remain soft. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28426 v1 pith:W6LUOXAN submitted 2026-07-30 quant-ph

Improved Convergence of Carleman-Embedded Quantum Algorithm for the Vlasov-Poisson System

Matthew Christensen , Tom Goffrey , Animesh Datta This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords Vlasov-PoissonCarleman embeddingquantum algorithmskinetic plasmaFourier-Hermitecollision frequencyLandau dampingLyapunov matrix
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 shows that a quantum algorithm using Carleman embedding can solve the nonlinear Vlasov–Poisson equations of kinetic plasma physics with collision frequencies that nature actually permits, rather than the unphysically large values required by earlier work. By rewriting the equations for the deviation from a Maxwellian equilibrium and expanding in Fourier–Hermite modes, the authors derive analytical and numerically optimized lower bounds on the needed collision strength; those bounds sit inside the physical window for Landau-damping initial data. They also prove that, for a wide family of basis functions, the collision frequency must still grow with velocity resolution if convergence is to be guaranteed. The resulting quantum algorithm extracts time-averaged transport coefficients far more efficiently than fully time-resolved snapshots. Predictive fluid models of fusion and laser plasmas need reliable kinetic closures; this result indicates that quantum hardware could supply them without artificial dissipation.

Core claim

After shifting the electron distribution by the Maxwellian and expanding in a Fourier–Hermite basis, Carleman embedding of the resulting quadratic ODE system converges for collision frequencies ν ≲ 1 that are physically allowed. The guarantee follows from a sufficient Lyapunov criterion that is evaluated both analytically for the identity matrix and by numerical minimization over positive-definite Hermitian matrices; the minimized bounds lie below the physical ceiling for perturbed-Maxwellian (Landau-damping) data and remain near it for two-stream data. The same analysis shows that any basis expansion forces the required collision frequency to increase with the number of velocity modes retai

What carries the argument

The Carleman convergence ratio R_P rewritten as a lower bound ν_P on collision frequency after the Maxwellian shift; the bound is minimized over Hermitian positive-definite Lyapunov matrices P that certify dissipation of the linear part.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on a sufficient mathematical test for truncation error that may still demand more collisions than nature supplies once velocity resolution is high or the plasma starts far from equilibrium.

What would settle it

Directly compute the Carleman truncation error for the shifted Fourier–Hermite system at ν = 1 with N_v ≳ 20 and two-stream initial data; if the error fails to decay exponentially with truncation level, the physical-regime claim does not hold.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Time-averaged heat flux and other fluid transport coefficients can be extracted with a near-quadratic query advantage over classical FFT time-stepping.
  • Landau-damping regimes remain inside the physical collision window even with hundreds to thousands of Hermite modes.
  • Any common velocity basis forces the required collision frequency to grow at least as fast as the square root of the number of modes.
  • Fully time-resolved final-state readout incurs an exponential-in-time cost factor created by the same Maxwellian shift that enables convergence.
  • Fluid plasma codes can in principle replace free-parameter closures with self-consistent kinetic moments obtained from the quantum algorithm.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same Lyapunov-minimization approach could be tried on Vlasov–Maxwell or kinetic-ion systems to test whether physical collisions remain sufficient once magnetic fields or ion motion are restored.
  • Tighter necessary-and-sufficient Carleman criteria, if found, might pull the two-stream bounds that currently sit slightly above ν = 1 into the physical window without changing the basis.
  • The exponential cost of time-resolved readout points toward hybrid workflows that query the quantum device only for averaged moments and advance the fluid equations classically between calls.
  • Velocity bases whose derivative matrices have slower-growing spectral norms could push the physical-resolution limit well beyond the Hermite scaling.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends Carleman embedding for the nonlinear 1+1 Vlasov–Poisson system by shifting the unknown to f̂ = f − f_M, expanding in a Fourier–Hermite basis, and deriving lower bounds on the collision frequency ν required for convergence of the truncated embedding. Using the sufficient criterion R_P < 1 of Jennings et al., they obtain an analytical P = I bound and numerically minimized Lyapunov bounds ν_P. For perturbed-Maxwellian (Landau) initial data the bounds lie inside the physical window ν ≲ 1 for large mode counts; for two-stream data the minimized bounds sit near or slightly above that window. They further prove a basis-agnostic lower bound showing that required ν must grow with velocity resolution for a broad class of expansions, and they compare quantum query complexity for time-averaged versus time-resolved outputs.

Significance. If the claims hold, the work meaningfully enlarges the regime in which Carleman-based quantum algorithms can be applied to kinetic plasma equations relative to Vaszary et al., who required unphysically large dissipation. The analytical P = I bound for Landau data (Eqs. (16)–(18), App. F) already places N_v up to ~10^3 inside ν ≲ 1, which is a concrete and useful guarantee. Explicit constructions of F_1/F_2, closed-form log- and spectral-norm evaluations, the basis-agnostic growth result (App. G), and a clear complexity distinction between averaged and resolved observables are genuine strengths. The paper is therefore a solid incremental contribution at the interface of quantum algorithms and kinetic plasma physics.

major comments (3)
  1. [Convergence of the Carleman Embedding; Eqs. (10), (14)] The central physical-ν claim rests on the sufficient (not necessary) criterion R_P < 1 (inequalities (10) and (14), imported from Jennings et al.). For P = I the analytic bound already lies inside ν ≲ 1 for f_pert up to large N_v, which is the strongest part of the result. However, no classical Carleman-truncation experiment is supplied to quantify the sufficiency gap. Without such a check it remains possible that the true radius of convergence is smaller than the reported ν_P (or that better P exist). A short numerical demonstration of truncation error versus N_c for a few (N_x, N_v, ν) points inside the claimed window would substantially strengthen the guarantee.
  2. [Fig. 1; Abstract; Conclusion] Figure 1(b) shows that even after Riemannian multi-start minimization the two-stream lower bound remains slightly above ν = 1 as N_v grows, and Figure 1(c) reports that the optimizer fails to beat P = I for N_x ≥ 14 on f_pert. The abstract and introduction nevertheless state that convergence is established “for physically reasonable collision frequencies.” The claim should be qualified more carefully by initial condition: it is solid for Landau/perturbed-Maxwellian data via the analytic P = I bound, but only marginal or conditional for two-stream data. The text already notes the sufficient nature of the criterion; the abstract and conclusions should mirror that nuance.
  3. [Complexity; Eqs. (23)–(24)] The complexity discussion asserts that extracting a time-resolved final state incurs a factor g = max_t ∥u(t)∥/∥u(T)∥ that is “likely” exponential in T because of the Maxwellian shift and the physical upper bound on ν (paragraph after Eq. (24)). This is plausible but not derived. Either a rigorous lower bound on g under the shifted dynamics, or an explicit statement that the exponential cost is conjectural, is needed before the strong contrast with the time-averaged case (Eq. (23)) can be treated as established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Shifted Vlasov-Poisson System; Eq. (4)] Eq. (4) writes the collision term as = ν f̂ on the right-hand side, while the surrounding text and the unshifted Eq. (1) use −ν(f − f_M). The sign convention after the shift should be stated once for clarity (the subsequent ODE (7) correctly has −ν C_{p,r}).
  2. [Fig. 1 caption; Appendix E] Appendix E (unshifted minimization) is useful but the main-text reference to it is brief. A one-sentence pointer in the caption of Fig. 1 or in the Convergence section would help readers locate the comparison.
  3. [Throughout] Typographical issues: “errof” → “error of” (Introduction); “theerof” → “thereof” (Complexity); “F ourier” spacing artifacts in several appendix headings; “desciptions” → “descriptions” (App. D).
  4. [Note; Introduction] The related work [34] is noted only in a final Note. A short comparison in the Introduction or Conclusion (weak nonlinearity vs. the present shifted approach) would better situate the contribution.
  5. [Fig. 1] Figure 1 panels would be clearer with explicit legends distinguishing “minimized ν_P”, “P = I”, and “ν = 1” rather than relying solely on colour and the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: external Carleman criterion applied to a new shifted VP system; bounds are computed, not fitted to the claim.

full rationale

The load-bearing convergence claim is obtained by importing the sufficient criterion R_P < 1 (and the associated Lyapunov norms) from Jennings et al. [20], rearranging it into a lower bound ν_P on the collision frequency (inequalities (10)/(14)), and evaluating that bound analytically for P = I (Appendix F) and numerically by Riemannian minimization over P (Appendix D, Fig. 1). The physical window ν ≲ 1 is taken from the standard plasma formulary (Appendix A), not from any fit to the target result. The Fourier–Hermite ODE system (7) and the matrices F_1, F_2 are derived from the shifted Vlasov–Poisson equations by standard projection; they are not defined in terms of the convergence bound. Self-citation to Vaszary et al. [16] is only background (prior work required unphysically large ν) and is not used to justify the new bounds. No parameter is fitted to data and then re-presented as a prediction; no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors; no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained application of external theory, not circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central convergence claim rests on the external sufficient Carleman/Lyapunov criterion, the BGK collision model and its physical upper bound, the Maxwellian shift, and a numerical search over P. No new physical entities are postulated. Free choices are the perturbation amplitude, initial-condition family, multi-start count, and basis.

free parameters (3)
  • perturbation strength α = 0.01
    Sets ||u0|| and thus the nonlinearity term in ν_P; paper uses α=0.01 as 'typical' for Landau damping demos.
  • N_start multi-start count = 100
    Number of random Hermitian-positive-definite seeds for Riemannian minimization; controls how close ν_P is to a true minimum.
  • velocity/spatial truncation (N_v, N_x) = varied 2–20 in figures
    Resolution parameters that enter both the physical claim and the growth of ||F2||; bounds are reported only up to ~20 modes in figures.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Sufficient Carleman convergence criterion R_P = ||F2||_P ||u0||_P / (−μ_P(F1)) < 1 whenever a Lyapunov matrix P≻0 satisfies P F1 + F1† P ≺ 0 (Jennings et al.).
    Inequality (10); entire ν > ν_P program is a rearrangement of this sufficient condition.
  • domain assumption BGK collision operator −ν(f − f_M) with dimensionless physical bound ν ≲ 1 from electron-electron Coulomb logarithm (Appendix A).
    Defines both the dissipation that enables convergence and the target 'physically reasonable' window.
  • ad hoc to paper Shifted unknown f̂ = f − f_M is the correct variable so that collisions become −ν f̂ and the Maxwellian advection appears in F1.
    Modeling choice that makes μ_P(F1)=−ν+μ_P(−i(S+Y)) and enables physical ν; unshifted Appendix E bounds stay above ν=1.
  • domain assumption Periodic spatial domain, vanishing |v|→∞ boundary, and Fourier–Hermite orthonormality close the projected ODE system (7).
    Standard kinetic-theory setup used to obtain the quadratic ODE (8).
  • domain assumption Sparse-access oracles for F1, F2 and efficient sparse state preparation of u0 are available to the quantum algorithm.
    Complexity claims (21)–(23) are oracle-query counts under this standard QLS model.

reviewed 2026-07-31 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improved Convergence of Carleman-Embedded Quantum Algorithm for the Vlasov-Poisson System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W6LUOXAN

@misc{pith2026260728426,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improved Convergence of Carleman-Embedded Quantum Algorithm for the Vlasov-Poisson System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W6LUOXAN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28426}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We extend the regime of convergence of Carleman-embedded quantum algorithms that solve the Vlasov-Poisson equations from kinetic plasma physics. We establish convergence, using both analytical and numerical lower bounds, for physically reasonable collision frequencies using a Fourier-Hermite expansion of the shifted phase-space distribution function. We also show that for a large class of basis functions, the convergence of the Carleman-embedded Vlasov-Poisson system requires increasing collision frequency strength with velocity resolution. The complexity of the quantum algorithm depends strongly on whether we seek time-averaged or -resolved outputs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28426 by Animesh Datta, Matthew Christensen, Tom Goffrey.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Numerically obtained lower bounds of collision frequency (blue & yellow), the fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Numerically obtained lower bounds of collision frequency in the unshifted regime (blue & yellow), the fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Atzeni, A

    S. Atzeni, A. Schiavi, F. Califano, F. Cattani, F. Cornolti, D. Del Sarto, T. V. Liseykina, A. Macchi, and F. Pegoraro, Fluid and kinetic simulation of inertial confinement fusion plasmas, Computer Physics Commu- nications169, 153 (2005)

    2005

  2. [2]

    This illustrates the nontrivial effect of minimizing over quadratic Lyapunov functions [20] in solving the nonlinear Vlasov-Poisson system

    The blue curves in Figure 1 (a), (b) show the Carleman embedding method to converge for smaller val- ues of the collision frequency compared to theP=Icase (grey dashed lines). This illustrates the nontrivial effect of minimizing over quadratic Lyapunov functions [20] in solving the nonlinear Vlasov-Poisson system. In Figure 1 (a), the minimized bounds eve...

  3. [3]

    T. D. Arber, T. Goffrey, and C. Ridgers, Models of thermal conduction and non-local transport of relevance to space physics with insights from laser–plasma the- 6 ory, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences10, 10.3389/fspas.2023.1155124 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    G. P. Schurtz, P. D. Nicola ¨ ı, and M. Busquet, A nonlocal electron conduction model for multidimensional radiation hydrodynamics codes, Physics of Plasmas7, 4238–4249 (2000)

    2000

  5. [5]

    J. P. Brodrick, R. J. Kingham, M. M. Marinak, M. V. Patel, A. V. Chankin, J. T. Omotani, M. V. Umansky, D. Del Sorbo, B. Dudson, J. T. Parker, G. D. Kerbel, M. Sherlock, and C. P. Ridgers, Testing nonlocal models of electron thermal conduction for magnetic and inertial confinement fusion applications, Physics of Plasmas24, 092309 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    F. F. Chen,Introduction to Plasma Physics and Con- trolled Fusion(Springer International Publishing, 2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    A. R. Bell and M. Sherlock, The fastVFP code for so- lution of the Vlasov-Fokker–Planck equation, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion66, 035014 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, In- ternational Journal of Theoretical Physics21, 467–488 (1982)

    1982

  9. [9]

    Babbush, N

    R. Babbush, N. Wiebe, J. McClean, J. McClain, H. Neven, and G. K.-L. Chan, Low-depth quantum simu- lation of materials, Physical Review X8, 011044 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    P. W. Shor, Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Fac- torization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Com- puter, SIAM Review41, 303 (1999)

    1999

  11. [11]

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Quantum Algorithm for Linear Systems of Equations, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 150502 (2009)

    2009

  12. [12]

    Engel, G

    A. Engel, G. Smith, and S. E. Parker, Quantum algo- rithm for the Vlasov equation, Phys. Rev. A100, 062315 (2019)

    2019

  13. [13]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Optimal Hamiltonian Sim- ulation by Quantum Signal Processing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 010501 (2017)

    2017

  14. [14]

    Ameri, E

    A. Ameri, E. Ye, P. Cappellaro, H. Krovi, and N. F. Loureiro, Quantum algorithm for the linear Vlasov equa- tion with collisions, Phys. Rev. A107, 062412 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    O’Neil, Collisionless Damping of Nonlinear Plasma Oscillations, Physics of Fluids8, 2255 (1965)

    T. O’Neil, Collisionless Damping of Nonlinear Plasma Oscillations, Physics of Fluids8, 2255 (1965)

    1965

  16. [16]

    I. B. Bernstein, J. M. Greene, and M. D. Kruskal, Exact Nonlinear Plasma Oscillations, Physical Review108, 546 (1957)

    1957

  17. [17]

    Vaszary, A

    T. Vaszary, A. Datta, T. Goffrey, and B. Appelbe, Solv- ing the Nonlinear Vlasov Equation on a Quantum Com- puter, arXiv , arXiv:2411.19310 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    J.-P. Liu, H. Ø. Kolden, H. K. Krovi, N. F. Loureiro, K. Trivisa, and A. M. Childs, Efficient quantum al- gorithm for dissipative nonlinear differential equations, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science118, e2026805118 (2021)

    2021

  19. [19]

    Forets and A

    M. Forets and A. Pouly, Explicit Error Bounds for Car- leman Linearization, arXiv , arXiv:1711.02552 (2017)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    Krovi, Improved quantum algorithms for linear and nonlinear differential equations, Quantum7, 913 (2023)

    H. Krovi, Improved quantum algorithms for linear and nonlinear differential equations, Quantum7, 913 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    Jennings, K

    D. Jennings, K. Korzekwa, M. Lostaglio, A. T. Sorn- borger, Y. Subasi, and G. Wang, Quantum algorithms for general nonlinear dynamics based on the Carleman embedding, arXiv , arXiv:2509.07155 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    P. C. S. Costa, P. Schleich, M. E. S. Morales, and D. W. Berry, Further improving quantum algorithms for nonlin- ear differential equations via higher-order methods and rescaling, npj Quantum Information11, 141 (2025)

    2025

  23. [23]

    A. M. Childs and N. Wiebe, Hamiltonian Simulation Us- ing Linear Combinations of Unitary Operations, arXiv , arXiv:1202.5822 (2012)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  24. [24]

    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, inPro- ceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2019 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2019) p. 193–204

    2019

  25. [25]

    An, J.-P

    D. An, J.-P. Liu, and L. Lin, Linear Combination of Hamiltonian Simulation for Nonunitary Dynamics with Optimal State Preparation Cost, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 150603 (2023)

    2023

  26. [26]

    A. G. R. Thomas, M. Tzoufras, A. P. L. Robinson, R. J. Kingham, C. P. Ridgers, M. Sherlock, and A. R. Bell, A review of Vlasov-Fokker-Planck numerical modeling of inertial confinement fusion plasma, Journal of Computa- tional Physics231, 1051 (2012)

    2012

  27. [27]

    P. L. Bhatnagar, E. P. Gross, and M. Krook, A Model for Collision Processes in Gases. I. Small Amplitude Pro- cesses in Charged and Neutral One-Component Systems, Physical Review94, 511 (1954)

    1954

  28. [28]

    Anderson, R

    D. Anderson, R. Fedele, and M. Lisak, A tutorial presen- tation of the two stream instability and Landau damping, American Journal of Physics69, 1262 (2001)

    2001

  29. [29]

    T. D. Arber and R. G. L. Vann, A Critical Comparison of Eulerian-Grid-Based Vlasov Solvers, Journal of Com- putational Physics180, 339 (2002)

    2002

  30. [30]

    K. M. Case, Plasma oscillations, Physics of Fluids21, 249 (1978)

    1978

  31. [31]

    G. L. Delzanno, Multi-dimensional, fully-implicit, spec- tral method for the Vlasov-Maxwell equations with exact conservation laws in discrete form, Journal of Computa- tional Physics301, 338 (2015)

    2015

  32. [32]

    Gleinig and T

    N. Gleinig and T. Hoefler, An Efficient Algorithm for Sparse Quantum State Preparation, in2021 26th Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference (ASP- DAC)(IEEE, 2021) p. 79

    2021

  33. [33]

    D. W. Berry, High-order quantum algorithm for solving linear differential equations, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical47, 105301 (2014)

    2014

  34. [34]

    Jennings, M

    D. Jennings, M. Lostaglio, R. B. Lowrie, S. Pallister, and A. T. Sornborger, The cost of solving linear differential equations on a quantum computer: fast-forwarding to explicit resource counts, Quantum8, 1553 (2024)

    2024

  35. [35]

    B. K. Berntson, D. Jennings, M. Lostaglio, and S. Parker, An end-to-end quantum algorithm for weakly nonlin- ear plasma physics with superquadratic speedup, arXiv , arXiv:2607.14308 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    J. D. Huba,NRL plasma formulary, Vol. 6790 (Naval Research Laboratory, 1998)

    1998

  37. [37]

    T. J. M. Boyd and J. J. Sanderson,The Physics of Plas- mas(2003)

    2003

  38. [38]

    E. M. Epperlein and R. W. Short, A practical nonlo- cal model for electron heat transport in laser plasmas, Physics of Fluids B3, 3092 (1991)

    1991

  39. [39]

    Boumal, B

    N. Boumal, B. Mishra, P.-A. Absil, and R. Sepulchre, Manopt, a Matlab toolbox for optimization on manifolds, Journal of Machine Learning Research15, 1455 (2014)

    2014

  40. [40]

    Bradbury, R

    J. Bradbury, R. Frostig, P. Hawkins, M. J. John- son, Y. Katariya, C. Leary, D. Macflaurin, G. Nec- ula, A. Paszke, J. VanderPlas, S. Wanderman-Milne, and Q. Zhang, JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs (2018). 7 Appendix A: Plasma Physics Details The dimensionless quantities in Eq. (1) are as follows: x→ x λD , v→ v vth , t→ω pt, f→ vt...

    2018

  41. [41]

    When projected in the Fourier-Hermite basis, the spatial advection opera- tor adds the terms−ik p(√rCp,r−1 + √r+ 1C p,r+1) to Eq

    Linear terms There are three contributions to the linearF 1 ma- trix: the linear spatial advection, the collision opera- tor and Maxwellian advection term. When projected in the Fourier-Hermite basis, the spatial advection opera- tor adds the terms−ik p(√rCp,r−1 + √r+ 1C p,r+1) to Eq. (7). This can be mapped to theF 1 matrix by the term−iS=−iG⊗K, where G=...

  42. [42]

    The contributions in Eq

    Nonlinear terms The nonlinear contributions come from the coupling of the velocity advection to the electric field evaluated using Poisson’s equation. The contributions in Eq. (7) are of the form P s̸=0 i√r ks ˆCs,0 ˆCp−s,r−1. TheF 2 is a rectangular matrix, mappingu ⊗2 7→u, so we introduce the indexing function (x, y) =y×(N x + 1) +x. Defining the two in...

  43. [43]

    For the two stream instability initial condition, the nu- merical minimization provides bounds that are reduced for all mode numbers tested

    Numerically MinimisedP Using the same minimization algorithm as for the shifted equations, we obtain the minimized bounds in Figure 2. For the two stream instability initial condition, the nu- merical minimization provides bounds that are reduced for all mode numbers tested. This improvement is more pronounced for the perturbed Maxwellian initial condi- t...

  44. [44]

    The collision operator adds a trivial shift of −νto the log-norm as all modes are equally damped

    Log-Normµ(F 1) We can analyze the three contributions to the log-norm individually. The collision operator adds a trivial shift of −νto the log-norm as all modes are equally damped. The spatial advection operator can be written in terms of its two componentsS=V ⊗ X, where [X] p,n =⟨g p, g′ n⟩x,(G2) [V] r,m =⟨h r, vhm⟩v.(G3) Due to the periodicty assumptio...

  45. [45]

    TakingC 1 >0 to be the absolute value of this minimum nonzero entry, we have ν > C1∥F2∥2.(G10)

    Initial State Norm Projecting the initial condition into the general basis, the vectoru 0 is given by the entries [u0](n,m) = Z L 0 Z R f(x, v,0)gn(x)∗hm(v)∗dvdx.(G9) For the dynamics to be non-trivial, at least one of the entries ofu 0 has to be nonzero. TakingC 1 >0 to be the absolute value of this minimum nonzero entry, we have ν > C1∥F2∥2.(G10)

  46. [46]

    The norm ofF 2 can be factored into its individual components∥F 2∥2 =∥D∥ 2∥W∥ 2∥Γ∥2

    Nonlinear Norm TheF 2 matrix containing the nonlinear contributions to the ODEs can be written (up to column reordering) as F2 =D ⊗ W⊤ ⊗Γ,(G11) where [D] r,m =⟨h r, h′ m⟩is the projection of the velocity derivative into the basis,Wis defined in (G7) and Γ is defined in (G4). The norm ofF 2 can be factored into its individual components∥F 2∥2 =∥D∥ 2∥W∥ 2∥Γ...

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 31, 2026.