Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 36 references

Fixing Divergence in Carleman Linearization via Analytical Continuation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that Carleman linearization's late-time divergence comes from evaluating its Laurent expansion outside the radius of convergence, and that inserting a Möbius-map regularized function into the spectral solution fixes the di

desk verdict The logistic-equation core is rigorous and the regularization trick is genuinely new, but the advertised extension to non-integer spectra doesn't follow from the derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.05873 v2 pith:55DPFXQZ submitted 2026-07-07 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

Mingshuo Zhu , Hayato Higuchi , Hokuto Iwakiri , Kouki Nakamura , Naohisa Sueishi , Shih-Yen Tseng , Shoichiro Tsutsui This is my paper
classification quant-phmath-phmath.MP
keywords CarlemanlinearizationanalyticcontinuationconformalmappingregularizedincompletebetafunctionlogisticequationKPP–Fisherphase-fieldmodelLCUquantumalgorithm
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 sets out to explain and remove the exponential divergence that plagues Carleman linearization, a standard method that lifts nonlinear differential equations into infinite linear systems. Working through the logistic equation, it shows the divergence appears because the Carleman spectral series is a Laurent expansion in ζ=e^t that is only valid inside a finite disk, even though the true solution stays analytic. The proposed fix is analytic continuation through the conformal map ζ=cω/(1−ω), which sends the positive time axis into the unit disk, and a regularized function f_{M,c}(k,t) inserted into the eigen-decomposed solution; for integer spectra this function is a regularized incomplete beta function. The method is validated on the logistic equation, KPP–Fisher equations under periodic boundary conditions, and phase-field models, with stability diagrams showing convergent and divergent regions in the (c, initial-condition) plane. A quantum implementation via LCU block encoding is given for the logistic equation with explicit error and complexity estimates.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the regularized function f_{M,c}(k,t), defined for positive integer eigenvalues as the regularized incomplete beta function I_{1−ω(t)}(k, M−k+1), with ω(t)=e^t/(e^t+c), and set to 1 for nonpositive k. It is inserted into the Carleman spectral solution as e^{kt}→e^{kt}f_{M,c}(k,t), damping the growing modes so that the conformally mapped series converges for all t≥0. The conformal map ζ=cω/(1−ω) (or η=cω'/(1−ω') with η=e^{2t} for cubic nonlinearities) is what moves the singularities outside the unit disk; the convergence condition c<(1−x0)/x0 for the logistic equation is derived explicitly and matched against the numerical phase diagrams. The LCU implementation uses

What would settle it

Solve the L=3 KPP–Fisher system with perturbation strength s decreasing to 10^{-8}, 10^{-12} and compare the regularized Carleman output against a high-resolution Euler solution of the unperturbed equation; if agreement does not improve, or if the regularized series diverges at a (c,u2) point the phase diagram classifies as convergent, the paper's regularization claim for that system is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Carleman divergence is not a numerical instability but a convergence-domain problem: the lifted solution y(t)=Σ a_k e^{kt} y^{(k)} matches the true solution only for |e^t| below a finite radius, so along t→∞ the series must eventually diverge. Inserting e^{kt} f_{M,c}(k,t) in place of e^{kt}, with f_{M,c} built from the Möbius map and equal to I_{1−ω(t)}(k, M−k+1) for positive integer k, turns the divergent series into a uniformly convergent one on t≥0, provided the map parameter c satisfies a condition such as c < (1−x0)/x0 for the logistic equation. The same recipe extends to quadratic reaction-diffusion systems (KPP–Fisher, using the same map and keeping negative

Load-bearing premise

For the PDE systems, the load-bearing, unproven premise is that one real scale parameter c in the Möbius map (or the η=e^{2t} variant) moves all relevant singularities outside the unit disk, and that the tiny degeneracy-breaking perturbation ε_i=s(K+1)(i−L+1), s≤10^{-4}, leaves the equation close enough to the original for numerical agreement with Euler to validate the method; the phase diagrams themselves show divergent regions, and the quantum cost estimate additionally ass

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Long-time Carleman simulations of quadratic reaction-diffusion systems can be stabilized by choosing c below the derived bound; the phase diagrams in (c, initial-condition) identify monotone, oscillatory, and divergent regimes.
  • The correction is a pure eigenvalue transformation of the Carleman matrix, so it composes with quantum linear-algebra tools: for the logistic equation the polynomial degree n=K−1 suffices in exact arithmetic, and the total Toffoli cost is O(Λ K^2 log K / ε_meas).
  • For the logistic equation the mapped-series truncation error is exactly bounded by (1−r)^M with r=cx0/(1−x0), giving M≥log(1/ε)/−log(1−r); choosing K=M removes additional Carleman truncation error.
  • For the PDE examples, the same regularization function applies to non-integer spectra (L=5 KPP–Fisher) and cubic phase-field models, but the error analysis explicitly leaves spatial discretization, perturbation, and conditioning errors as future work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The regularized function acts as a convergence factor that depends only on the spectrum of the Carleman matrix, not on the detailed coefficients; if that holds more broadly, the same f_{M,c} could be applied to other Carleman-based schemes (e.g., lattice-Boltzmann or fluid simulations) that exhibit the same late-time divergence, with the map parameter chosen from a stability scan rather than from
  • Because the KPP–Fisher and phase-field validations use a degeneracy-breaking perturbation ε_i that modifies the equation itself, an unstated testable consequence is that the regularized solution should converge to the unperturbed Euler reference as s→0; without such a continuity check, the validation strictly applies to the perturbed system.
  • The quantum complexity statement depends on Λ, the LCU normalization, and no bound on Λ is derived; a natural extension is to compute how Λ grows with K, c, and M, since the advertised O(Λ K^2 log K / ε) scaling is only useful if Λ does not grow too fast.
  • The stability diagrams suggest a practical recipe for equations without exact solutions: scan c and the initial condition to locate the monotone-convergent region, then set M≈K; this empirical map selection could be automated and would be a direct test of the method on new systems.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper identifies the long-time divergence of Carleman linearization with the evaluation of the lifted spectral series y(t)=Σ a_k e^{kt} y^{(k)} outside its finite radius of convergence, and proposes to fix it by a Möbius conformal map ζ=cω/(1−ω) together with a regularized function f_{M,c}(k,t) inserted into the spectral sum. For the logistic equation the paper derives the convergence condition c<(1−x_0)/x_0, gives an explicit mapped-series truncation error (Eqs. (59)–(62)), and supports it with numerical phase diagrams. The method is then extended to KPP–Fisher equations and phase-field models, with a different map η=cω'/(1−ω') for cubic nonlinearities, and a quantum LCU implementation is presented with an error and complexity analysis.

Significance. The logistic-equation analysis is a genuine contribution: the divergence is traced to the geometric-series radius, the fix is derived from the conformal map rather than fitted, and the truncation error is explicit and checked numerically. This part is solid and publishable. However, the claimed generality to non-integer spectra and to the PDE examples is currently not established. The non-integer version of the regularized function is an unjustified spectral filter, and the degeneracy-breaking perturbation changes the equation under study. If these gaps are closed, the method would be an important step toward long-time stable Carleman simulation. The paper does provide exact-solution-based checks and reproducible numerical phase diagrams, which are strengths.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV B, Eq. (22)/(23); §V Eq. (39)] The non-integer extension is invalid. Eq. (22) is a finite sum over integer powers ω^m obtained from the binomial expansion of (ω/(1−ω))^k only when k is a positive integer. For non-integer k the expansion contains fractional powers ω^{k+n}; it cannot be truncated at integer M, and I_{1−ω}(k,M−k+1) is not the truncated conformal-map series because the incomplete-beta identity used in Eq. (23) assumes integer shape parameters. A minimal check for k=1/2, M=1 gives the truncated sum (1/π)ω^{1/2}(1−ω)^{1/2}, while I_{1−ω}(1/2,1/2)=(2/π)arcsin√(1−ω). The L=5 KPP and phase-field results therefore implement a spectral filter that is not the derived analytic continuation.
  2. [§IV A, Eqs. (30)–(31)] The perturbation ε_i=s(K+1)(i−L+1) changes the differential equation being solved. The reference solutions in Figs. 9, 11, 14, and 16 are obtained by Euler's method on the perturbed system, not on the original KPP–Fisher or phase-field equations. Since no bound on the perturbation error is provided and the paper explicitly defers this to future work, the numerical agreement cannot validate the regularized Carleman method for the original PDEs. This is load-bearing because the perturbation is introduced specifically to make eigenvector computation tractable.
  3. [§VI, Eqs. (66)–(71)] The quantum resource estimate is incomplete because the LCU normalization Λ is never bounded. The final complexity O(ΛK^2 log K / ε_meas) cannot be assessed without a bound on Λ in terms of K, c, M, and n, or at least a numerical study. In addition, the block-encoding cost T_BE=O(K log K) hides the inverse-precision factors in the value-oracle rotations, and the condition number κ(P_K) in Eq. (64) is not estimated. The claim of a concrete resource estimate is therefore stronger than what is demonstrated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] Several typos: 'calcualtion' (§I), 'spare' should be 'sparse' (§VI), 'In this case, In this case' (§V), and references [25] and [33] are duplicated.
  2. [§IV B] The text says the L=5 results are shown in 'Figure 10 and Figure 16', but the L=5 comparison is Fig. 11; Fig. 16 is the phase-field comparison.
  3. [§II B] 'exponential (int) divergence' contains a stray '(int)'.
  4. [§III A] The statement that the sum in Eq. (22) begins at m=1 instead of k because Γ(m−k+1) hits a pole when m<k is only correct for integer k; for non-integer k no such pole occurs at integer m, which is another indication that the non-integer generalization needs separate derivation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: logistic regularization is derived from the conformal-map binomial expansion, PDE validations are benchmarked against Euler's method, and no load-bearing self-citation is present.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. For the logistic equation the divergence is proved by diagonalizing the Carleman matrix (Eqs. (10)-(13)); the coefficients a_k are computed from the initial data, not fitted. The conformal map (14) and binomial expansion (15) are applied directly to the series, yielding the convergence bound c < (1-x0)/x0 in Eq. (18). The regularized function f_{M,c}(k,t) in Eq. (22) is not an adjustable fit but the truncated binomial expansion of the Möbius-mapped eigenfunction; Eq. (23) is the standard incomplete-beta identity for integer k. Numerical phase diagrams are checked against the analytic bound rather than used to define the bound. The KPP-Fisher and phase-field extensions are validated against Euler's method as an independent reference, and the degeneracy-breaking perturbation and the absence of sharp a priori bounds for the PDE cases are explicitly acknowledged as future work in Sec. VI, so these are limitations rather than inputs that force the claimed result. There is no load-bearing self-citation: [29] and [34]-[36] are external works. The non-integer k generalization in Sec. IV B is mathematically under-supported, but that is a correctness gap, not a reduction of the prediction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central logistic derivation needs only standard complex analysis plus the Carleman eigenbasis; the free parameters are the map scale c, truncations M and K, and the perturbation scale s. For the PDE extensions, the key unproven assumption is that the chosen conformal map moves all relevant singularities outside the unit disk and that the degeneracy-breaking perturbation does not change the solution materially.

free parameters (4)
  • c (Möbius map scale) = c=2,4,8,12 for logistic (x0=0.1); c=1,4 for KPP-Fisher; c=5,15,20,40,80 for phase-field
    Conformal-map scale parameter chosen by hand. For logistic the constraint c<(1−x0)/x0 is derived (Eq. 18), and c=4 is used in the quantum simulation. For PDEs no analytic constraint is derived; c values are selected to land in the convergent region of the phase diagram.
  • M (mapped-series truncation order) = M=K in most runs; M=1.5K−0.5k in the quantum simulation (Sec. VI)
    Controls how many terms of the conformally mapped series are kept. The paper shows M too large relative to K causes oscillatory divergence (Fig. 5), so M is tuned empirically; the error bound (Eq. 59) depends on M via (1−r)^M.
  • K (Carleman truncation order) = K=8,12,13,14,15,16 depending on example
    Standard Carleman truncation order; results depend on it and phase diagrams are built from K=12-15. Not fitted to data but chosen by the authors.
  • s (degeneracy-breaking perturbation scale) = s≤10^-4, random
    Added in Eq. (30)-(31) as ε_i=s(K+1)(i−L+1) to lift eigenvalue degeneracy so eigenvectors can be computed. The value is chosen small but no seed is given; it alters the equation being solved.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Analytic solutions admit Taylor/Laurent expansions with finite radius of convergence, and analytic continuation is unique.
    Used in Sec. II B to identify divergence as the series leaving its convergence disk; standard complex analysis.
  • standard math The Carleman matrix A for polynomial systems has a point spectrum with eigenvectors spanning the truncated space (diagonalizable).
    Eqs. (9)-(11) and (43)-(45) assume an eigenbasis y^{(k)} and decomposition A=P diag(k) P^{-1}; for the logistic case the eigenvectors are binomial and A is diagonalizable. For KPP-Fisher/phase-field, eigenvectors are computed numerically after the perturbation.
  • domain assumption Truncating the Carleman hierarchy at order K (setting y_{K+1}=0 in the closure) yields a finite linear system that approximates the original nonlinear dynamics.
    Standard Carleman truncation assumption stated in Sec. II; the approximation error is not quantified for the PDE cases.
  • domain assumption Spatial discretization with Δz=1 and periodic boundary conditions faithfully represents the PDEs (KPP-Fisher, phase-field) on the chosen lattice.
    Secs. IV and V discretize ∂^2/∂z^2 with second-order central differences and set Δz=1; the continuum limit is not discussed.
  • ad hoc to paper For the PDE examples, the perturbed equation (30) with ε_i=s(K+1)(i−L+1), s≤10^-4, is close enough to the original equation that validating on the perturbed system validates the method.
    The perturbation is introduced solely to break eigenvalue degeneracy; no error estimate relates the perturbed to the unperturbed solution. This is the weakest step in the PDE validation.
invented entities (1)
  • Regularized function f_{M,c}(k,t) = I_{1-ω}(k, M-k+1)
    purpose: Inserted into the Carleman spectral solution to suppress divergent e^{kt} modes by realizing analytic continuation as an eigenvalue transformation.
    A mathematical object defined by the authors; its validity is judged by numerical agreement with reference solutions in the same paper. No external falsifiable prediction is made beyond the convergence diagrams, which are produced by the method itself.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fixing Divergence in Carleman Linearization via Analytical Continuation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/55DPFXQZ

@misc{pith2026260705873,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fixing Divergence in Carleman Linearization via Analytical Continuation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/55DPFXQZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.05873}
}
read the original abstract

Nonlinear differential equations play a crucial role in modeling a wide range of phenomena, yet their solutions remain notoriously difficult to obtain. With the rapid development of quantum computing, quantum algorithms for efficiently solving such equations are actively being explored. One promising approach is based on Carleman linearization, which transforms nonlinear differential equations into linear systems. However, this method suffers from exponential divergence beyond a certain time scale. By reformulating the solutions in terms of eigenvalues and eigenvectors, we identify that this divergence originates from the Laurent expansion outside its neighborhood of convergence. To address this issue, we insert a regularized function to the divergent solution hinted by analytical continuation. We validate this divergence-correction method on both the logistic equation and some other partial differential equations like KPP-Fisher equations and Phase-Field models under periodic conditions. We implement our method for the logistic equation using the Linear Combination of Unitaries (LCU) quantum algorithm, providing a detailed complexity and error analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05873 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Comparison of Carleman linearization with the exact solution of the logistic equation, a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Conformal mapping between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Comparison of heatmaps for the regularized incomplete beta function I [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Time evolution of the logistic solution after conformal mapping for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The Carleman solution to the logistic equation with di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Phase diagram in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Phase diagram in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: First component of the Carleman solution to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Comparision among the Euler’s method, the original Carleman solution and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: First component of the Carleman solution to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Comparision among the Euler’s method, the original Carleman solution and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Time evolution of the cubic logistic solution after applying the new conformal map, for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: First component of the Carleman solution to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Comparision among the Euler’s method, the original Carleman solution and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: First component of the Carleman solution to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Comparision among the Euler’s method, the original Carleman solution and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: Phase diagram in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18: Classical simulation of the quantum algorithm applied to the logistic equation with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_18.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 15 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    (39) and the divergence can be fixed

    In this case, In this case, the regularized function is modified into fM,c(k,t)=  I1−ω( k 2,M− k 2 +1),k>0, 1,k≤0. (39) and the divergence can be fixed. With this modification, the numerical approximation takes the form y(t)=lim K→∞  KX k=−2K akekt  =lim K→∞ 2KX k=0 a−kζ−k + KX k=1 akζkI1−ω′ k 2,M− k 2 +1 !! . (40) where we follow...

  2. [2]

    Zeigler, H

    B. Zeigler, H. Pr ¨ahofer, and T. G. Kim,Theory of Modeling and Simulation, 2nd ed.Academic Press, 2000

    2000

  3. [3]

    Study of the diffusion equation with growth of the quantity of matter and its application to a biological problem,

    A. N. Kolmogorov, I. G. Petrovsky, and N. S. Piskunov, “Study of the diffusion equation with growth of the quantity of matter and its application to a biological problem,”Bull. Moscow Univ. Math. Ser . A1(1937) 1–25

    1937

  4. [4]

    The wave of advance of advantageous genes,

    R. A. Fisher, “The wave of advance of advantageous genes,”Ann. Eugen.7(1937) 355–369

    1937

  5. [5]

    On the theory of phase transitions,

    L. D. Landau, “On the theory of phase transitions,”Zh. Eksp. Teor . Fiz.7(1937) 19–32

    1937

  6. [6]

    On the theory of superconductivity,

    V . L. Ginzburg and L. D. Landau, “On the theory of superconductivity,”Zh. Eksp. Teor . Fiz.20 (1950) 1064–1082

    1950

  7. [7]

    Free energy of a nonuniform system. i. interfacial free energy,

    J. W. Cahn and J. E. Hilliard, “Free energy of a nonuniform system. i. interfacial free energy,”J. Chem. Phys.28(1958) 258–267

    1958

  8. [8]

    Ground state structures in ordered binary alloys with second neighbor interactions,

    S. M. Allen and J. W. Cahn, “Ground state structures in ordered binary alloys with second neighbor interactions,”Acta Metall.27(1979) 1085–1095

    1979

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Phase-field method for computationally efficient modeling of solidification with arbitrary interface kinetics,

    A. Karma and W.-J. Rappel, “Phase-field method for computationally efficient modeling of solidification with arbitrary interface kinetics,”Phys. Rev. E53(1996) R3017–R3020

    1996

  2. [10]

    Bellman,Dynamic Programming

    R. Bellman,Dynamic Programming. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1957

    1957

  3. [11]

    Exponential quantum speedup in simulating coupled classical oscillators,

    R. Babbush, D. W. Berry, R. Kothari, R. D. Somma, and N. Wiebe, “Exponential quantum speedup in simulating coupled classical oscillators,” inProc. IEEE FOCS. 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Theory of trotter error with commutator scaling,

    A. M. Childs, Y . Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, “Theory of trotter error with commutator scaling,”Phys. Rev. X11no. 1, (2021) 011020,arXiv:1912.08854 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Tailoring term truncations for electronic structure calculations using a linear combination of unitaries,

    R. Meister, S. C. Benjamin, and E. T. Campbell, “Tailoring term truncations for electronic structure calculations using a linear combination of unitaries,”Quantum6(2022) 637,arXiv:2007.11624 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: Exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics,

    A. Gily ´en, Y . Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, “Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: Exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics,” inProc. 51st ACM SIGACT Symp. 33 Theory Comput.2018.arXiv:1806.01838 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Grand unification of quantum algorithms,

    J. M. Martyn, Z. M. Rossi, A. K. Tan, and I. L. Chuang, “Grand unification of quantum algorithms,” PRX Quantum2no. 4, (2021) 040203,arXiv:2105.02859 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Linear combination of hamiltonian simulation for nonunitary dynamics with optimal state preparation cost,

    D. An, J.-P. Liu, and L. Lin, “Linear combination of hamiltonian simulation for nonunitary dynamics with optimal state preparation cost,”Phys. Rev. Lett.131no. 15, (2023) 150603, arXiv:2303.01029 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

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

    Y . Sato, H. Tezuka, R. Kondo, and N. Yamamoto, “Quantum algorithm for partial differential equations of nonconservative systems with spatially varying parameters,”Phys. Rev. Appl.23no. 1, (2025) 014063

    2025

  10. [18]

    Efficient hamiltonian simulation for solving option price dynamics,

    J. Gonzalez-Conde, ´A. Rodr´ıguez-Rozas, E. Solano, and M. Sanz, “Efficient hamiltonian simulation for solving option price dynamics,”Phys. Rev. Res.5no. 4, (2023) 043220,arXiv:2101.04023 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Quantum simulation of partial differential equations: Applications and detailed analysis,

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and Y . Yu, “Quantum simulation of partial differential equations: Applications and detailed analysis,”Phys. Rev. A108no. 3, (2023) 032603,arXiv:2212.14703 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Quantum algorithm for nonlinear differential equations,

    S. Lloyd, G. D. Palma, C. Gokler, B. Kiani, Z.-W. Liu, M. Marvian, F. Tennie, and T. Palmer, “Quantum algorithm for nonlinear differential equations,”arXiv:2011.06571 [quant-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Efficient quantum algorithm for dissipative nonlinear differential equations,

    J.-P. Liu, H. Ø. Kolden, H. K. Krovi, N. F. Loureiro, K. Trivisa, and A. M. Childs, “Efficient quantum algorithm for dissipative nonlinear differential equations,”Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.118no. 35, (2021) e2026805118,arXiv:2011.03185 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Improved quantum algorithms for linear and nonlinear differential equations,

    H. Krovi, “Improved quantum algorithms for linear and nonlinear differential equations,”Quantum7 (Feb., 2023) 913.https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-02-02-913

    2023 doi

  15. [24]

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

    P. C. S. Costa, P. Schleich, M. E. S. Morales, and D. W. Berry, “Further improving quantum algorithms for nonlinear differential equations via higher-order methods and rescaling,”npj Quantum Information11no. 1, (Aug., 2025) .http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41534-025-01084-z

    2025 doi

  16. [25]

    Quantum algorithms for general nonlinear dynamics based on the carleman embedding

    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. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.07155

    2025 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Analysis of carleman linearization of lattice boltzmann,

    W. Itani and S. Succi, “Analysis of carleman linearization of lattice boltzmann,”Fluids7no. 1, 34 (2022) 24

    2022

  18. [27]

    Quantum algorithm for lattice boltzmann simulation of incompressible fluids with a nonlinear collision term,

    W. Itani, K. R. Sreenivasan, and S. Succi, “Quantum algorithm for lattice boltzmann simulation of incompressible fluids with a nonlinear collision term,”Phys. Fluids36no. 1, (2024) 017112, arXiv:2304.05915 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Three carleman routes to the quantum simulation of classical fluids,

    C. Sanavio, R. Scatamacchia, C. D. Falco, and S. Succi, “Three carleman routes to the quantum simulation of classical fluids,”Phys. Fluids36no. 5, (2024) 057143,arXiv:2402.16686

    2024 arXiv

  20. [29]

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

    J.-P. Liu, D. An, D. Fang, J. Wang, G. H. Low, and S. Jordan, “Efficient Quantum Algorithm for Nonlinear Reaction–Diffusion Equations and Energy Estimation,”Commun. Math. Phys.404no. 2, (2023) 963–1020,arXiv:2205.01141 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Divergence-free algorithms for solving nonlinear differential equations on quantum computers,

    K. Endo and K. Z. Takahashi, “Divergence-free algorithms for solving nonlinear differential equations on quantum computers,”arXiv:2411.16233 [quant-ph]

  22. [31]

    Globalizing the carleman linear embedding method for nonlinear dynamics,

    I. Novikau and I. Joseph, “Globalizing the carleman linear embedding method for nonlinear dynamics,”arXiv:2510.15715 [quant-ph]

  23. [32]

    Explicit Quantum Circuits for Block Encodings of Certain Sparse Matrices,

    D. Camps, L. Lin, R. Van Beeumen, and C. Yang, “Explicit Quantum Circuits for Block Encodings of Certain Sparse Matrices,”SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl.45no. 1, (2024) 801–827, arXiv:2203.10236 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Application de la th ´eorie des ´equations int´egrales lin´eaires aux syst`emes d’´equations diff´erentielles non lin´eaires,

    T. Carleman, “Application de la th ´eorie des ´equations int´egrales lin´eaires aux syst`emes d’´equations diff´erentielles non lin´eaires,”Acta Mathematica59(Dec., 1932) 63–87

    1932

  25. [34]

    Analysis of carlemann linearization of lattice boltzmann,

    W. Itani and S. Succi, “Analysis of carlemann linearization of lattice boltzmann,”Fluids7no. 1, (2022) 24,arXiv:2111.11327 [physics.flu-dyn]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Convergence acceleration of taylor series by change of variables (a study on numerical algorithms),

    H. Takahasi and M. Mori, “Convergence acceleration of taylor series by change of variables (a study on numerical algorithms),”RIMS Kokyuroku172(1973) 78–87

    1973

  27. [36]

    Quadrature formulas obtained by variable transformation,

    M. Mori, “Quadrature formulas obtained by variable transformation,”Numer . Math.35no. 3, (1980) 163–174

    1980

  28. [37]

    Analytic continuation of some special functions by variable transformation,

    H. Takahasi and M. Mori, “Analytic continuation of some special functions by variable transformation,”Japan Journal of Applied Mathematics1no. 3, (1984) 337–346. 35

    1984

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.