Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Schr\"odingerization based Quantum Circuits for Maxwell's Equation with time-dependent source terms

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper constructs an explicit qubit circuit that simulates Maxwell's equations with time-dependent sources and PEC boundaries, and proves it is polynomially faster than classical FDTD.

desk verdict Genuinely explicit circuit construction for Schrödingerized Maxwell, but the advertised log-log qubit overhead and the polynomial speedup over FDTD are not supported by the paper's own error bounds. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10999 v1 pith:ET3HSNXA submitted 2024-11-17 quant-ph cs.NAmath.NA

Chuwen Ma , Shi Jin , Nana Liu , Kezhen Wang , Lei Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.NAmath.NA MSC 81P6865M0635Q61
keywords SchrödingerisationMaxwell'sequationsquantumcircuitconstructionPECboundaryconditionstime-dependentsourcesautonomizationFDTDcomparisonLie-Trotter-Suzukisplitting
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

This paper closes the gap between Schrödingerisation as a black-box Hamiltonian-simulation method and a concrete circuit-level algorithm: it writes down, gate by gate, a quantum circuit that simulates Maxwell's equations in a cube with perfect electric conductor walls and time-dependent current and charge sources. The construction lifts the non-unitary Maxwell system into a Schrödinger-type system via the warped phase transformation, adds an autonomous time variable $s$ to remove time dependence, and discretizes on a Yee lattice so the resulting Hamiltonian is a sum of low-weight Pauli terms. For sources that at each sampled time take two constant values on index sets of total size $O(m)$, the paper proves explicit gate counts and argues the lifted dimensions add only about $O(\log\log(1/\varepsilon))$ extra qubits. If correct, electromagnetic simulation becomes a concrete candidate for polynomial quantum speedup over the classical FDTD method rather than an abstract formalism.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the autonomous Schrödinger-type Hamiltonian $H = I_n \otimes P_s \otimes I_{N_p} + \sum_{l} (H_1(s_l) \otimes |l\rangle\langle l| \otimes D_p - H_2(s_l) \otimes |l\rangle\langle l| \otimes I_{N_p})$ obtained after Fourier-spectral discretization of the warped phase $p$ and delta-smeared initial data in the autonomous variable $s$. Its circuit-friendliness comes from the splitting $H = H_{Ds} + H_F + H_{\mathrm{curl}}$: $H_{Ds}$ is a QFT-diagonal phase, $H_F$ is a sum of $X/Y$ rotations controlled on source and time index patterns, and $H_{\mathrm{curl}}$ is a sum of shift operators that Lemma 4.1 rewrites with CNOTs and controlled-$R_Z$ gates. These blocks turn Schrödingerisation into a concrete gate sequence, and the complexity theorem is a count of those gates plus the Trotter steps needed for precision $\varepsilon$.

What would settle it

Take a 3D Maxwell problem with a source that at one time level is a smooth function taking many distinct values across the whole grid, implement the paper's $U_2$ by generalizing Assumption 4.1, and check whether the CNOT count still fits Theorem 5.1's $O(|I||I_s|)$ formula and whether the Trotter error bound of Lemma 5.2 holds; if either fails, the claim that the method handles general time-dependent sources is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Schrödingerised Maxwell equations with PEC boundary conditions and time-dependent sources can be implemented by an explicit three-block circuit: $U_1$ applies the $p$-momentum evolution with a phase gate conjugated by the QFT, $U_2$ implements the source coupling with multi-controlled $R_X$/$R_Y$ rotations activated on binary-encoded index sets, and $U_3$ implements the Yee curl operator using a Bell-basis decomposition of shift matrices. Theorem 5.1 then bounds the total number of single-qubit and CNOT gates needed to prepare the field with precision $\varepsilon$, and the comparison in Section 5.1.1 states the cost is $\tilde{O}(\varepsilon^{-5/4}\log(1/\varepsilon^{1/r}))$ with a higher-order Trotter formula, against $O(\varepsilon^{-1-d/2})$ for classical FDTD. The paper further claims that the stretching transformation which homogenizes the source does not degrade the success probability, since $\|u_f(0)\|/\|u_f(T)\| = O(1)$ for bounded sources.

Load-bearing premise

All circuit blocks and the complexity bounds assume that at each sampled time level the discretized source takes only two constant values, on index sets of total size $O(m)$; without this two-valued structure the source-coupling circuit $U_2$ and Theorem 5.1's gate counts do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For sources satisfying Assumption 4.1, the paper's circuit explicitly prepares the electromagnetic field state with the stated gate counts, giving a qubit-level blueprint for Schrödingerised Maxwell simulation.
  • The added $p$ and $s$ dimensions cost only about $O(\log\log(1/\varepsilon))$ extra qubits, so the overhead of unitarization and autonomization does not dominate at high precision.
  • With a second-order Trotter-Suzuki formula the total cost is $\tilde{O}(\varepsilon^{-5/4}\log(1/\varepsilon^{1/r}))$ in fixed dimension, compared with $O(\varepsilon^{-1-d/2})$ for classical FDTD, so the quantum algorithm is polynomially faster.
  • The homogenization of the source via auxiliary variables keeps the success probability bounded, because $\|u_f(0)\|/\|u_f(T)\|=O(1)$ for $J,\rho \in L^\infty(0,T;L^2(\Omega))$.
  • The same circuit decomposition (QFT phase, multi-controlled rotations, Bell-basis shifts) gives a template for other Schrödingerised PDEs with boundary or source terms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A practical reading of the 'almost $\log\log(1/\varepsilon)$' claim: for a fixed smoothness order $r$, the $p$- and $s$-grid qubit counts from Equations (88)-(89) are $O(\log(1/\varepsilon))$; the advertised $\log\log$ scaling is realized only when $r$ grows with precision. This is our inference from Lemma 5.5, not stated by the paper.
  • If Assumption 4.1 is dropped in favor of arbitrary smooth sources approximated by $K$ two-valued patches, Theorem 5.1's complexity would gain a factor of $K$; the crossover precision at which the quantum algorithm beats FDTD would shift accordingly. This is a testable extension the paper does not discuss.
  • The Bell-basis shift decomposition used for the curl operator is generic for any discretized differential operator built from $S_+$ and $S_-$, so the same circuit pattern should extend to other hyperbolic systems such as elastodynamics or two-fluid plasma models, a connection the paper leaves implicit.
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. This paper gives an explicit qubit-level quantum circuit construction for Maxwell's equations with perfect electric conductor (PEC) boundary conditions and time-dependent source terms, based on Schrödingerization and autonomousization. The semi-discrete Maxwell system is converted into a source-free ODE by auxiliary variables, then into an autonomous Schrödinger-type Hamiltonian via the warped phase transformation, and the resulting time evolution is decomposed into three terms (HDs, HF, Hcurl) that are implemented with concrete Trotterized circuits, including multi-controlled rotations and QFT-based spectral discretizations. The paper also provides an error analysis (Lemmas 5.2 and 5.5), a complexity theorem (Theorem 5.1), a comparison with classical FDTD, and numerical experiments on a one-dimensional reduced Maxwell problem.

Significance. If the advertised claims hold, this is a valuable step beyond black-box Hamiltonian simulation for Schrödingerization: the circuit constructions for the source coupling and for the PEC boundary terms are explicit, the gate counts are concrete, and the numerical experiments verify the recovery and convergence mechanism. The paper's strongest contribution is the detailed circuit decomposition and the associated Trotter-error analysis, which are not merely existence arguments. However, the central advertised feature, namely that the two extra dimensions increase the qubit count by only almost log log(1/epsilon), is not supported by the paper's own estimates; and the treatment of 'time-dependent source terms' is restricted to a narrow structural assumption. These issues affect the framing and the main complexity comparison, so the paper needs revision before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, §3.4, §5.1 proof of Theorem 5.1, Eqs. (88)–(89)] The claim that the extra p- and s-dimensions add only 'almost log log 1/epsilon' qubits is not supported by the manuscript's error analysis. Lemma 5.5 bounds the spectral and delta-approximation errors by algebraic quantities O(Delta_p^r + Delta_s^r) with a fixed r, and the proof of Theorem 5.1 explicitly chooses Np, Ns = O(ln(1/epsilon)/epsilon^{1/r}), giving n_p, n_s = O(log(1/epsilon)) for fixed r. The paper's explicit smoothness examples are g in C^2(R) and beta in H^2(R), and the numerical table shows second-order convergence, not spectral convergence. No estimates for the H^r norms of the solution or for the r-dependence of constants are provided, so the 'essentially spectral accuracy' statement in §3.4 cannot be used to replace the algebraic bound. This is load-bearing because the abstract, the introduction, and the conclusions all advertise the log-log overhead, and every gate count in Theorem 5.1 inherits an extra log(1/epsilon) factor if n_p and n_s are actually O(log(1/epsilon)).
  2. [Section 4, Assumption 4.1 and Eqs. (37)–(38); Theorem 5.1] The paper's abstract claims a quantum algorithm for Maxwell's equations with 'time-dependent source terms', but Assumption 4.1 restricts the source vectors at each time level s_l to take only two constant values on index subsets of total size O(m). The circuit for the source-coupling term U2, the decomposition in Eqs. (37)–(38), and the gate counts in Lemma 5.3 and Theorem 5.1 all depend on this two-valued structure. For a general smooth source J(x,t), rho(x,t), the source matrix F(s_l) would contain many independent entries, and the same circuit construction would require a different, potentially much more expensive decomposition. The paper should either state this restriction as an explicit scope limitation in the abstract and theorem statements, or provide a construction for general sources that supports the advertised claim.
  3. [Section 5.1.1, Eqs. (90)–(92)] The claimed improved complexity with a higher-order Trotter-Suzuki formula, ~O(epsilon^{-5/4} log(1/epsilon)) for d = O(1), is only sketched. Equation (91) gives an Nt scaling that mixes spatial, spectral, and source-size parameters, but no complete error analysis is given for the higher-order splitting applied to the full Hamiltonian H = HDs + HF + Hcurl, including the commutator structure and the number of terms k. Since this ~O(epsilon^{-5/4}) bound is presented as a significant further acceleration over the first-order result, it needs a derivation rather than a one-line assertion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.4, after Eq. (35)] The statement that 'for general r, this will lead to essentially the spectral accuracy' is imprecise and contradicts the algebraic convergence used in Lemma 5.5 and in the numerical experiments; it should be either proved or removed.
  2. [Eq. (34)] The piecewise definition of beta(ξ) uses |x| rather than |ξ|, and the function is only H^2-regular; calling this 'high-order' in later text should be qualified as fixed-order (r = 2) unless higher-regularity examples and their convergence orders are supplied.
  3. [Section 6, Table 1 and Figure 8] The numerical experiments are for a one-dimensional reduced Maxwell system, not for the full three-dimensional PEC circuit or for the Assumption 4.1 source-coupling circuit; they validate the recovery and convergence mechanism but should not be read as a demonstration of the full circuit implementation.
  4. [Lemma 5.5, Eq. (83)] The notation ‖V − U‖ is overloaded: V and U first appear as Nt-step evolutions and then in the proof are related to one-step Trotter error via Eq. (86). Clarifying the distinction between the one-step and Nt-step operators would help the reader follow the error budget.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the construction is self-contained as an explicit circuit design, though the advertised log-log qubit overhead is internally unsupported (a correctness gap, not a circular reduction).

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an explicit construction: it starts from Yee-discretized Maxwell equations, homogenizes the source term via an auxiliary variable, applies Schrödingerization (warped phase w=e^{-p}u), converts the non-autonomous system to autonomous form via an extra s-dimension, then designs Trotterized circuits for the resulting Hamiltonian. Each step is either direct algebra in the paper or a citation to prior published work [10,21,22,23,24,25]. The prior works are self-citations, but they are external published methods, not parameters fitted to the present paper's target result, and the paper does not tune any quantity to force its stated conclusions. The main advertised claim, that the two extra dimensions add only O(log log 1/epsilon) qubits, is not actually supported by the paper's own error analysis: Lemma 5.5 gives algebraic O(Delta_p^r + Delta_s^r) convergence with fixed r, and Equations (88)-(89) set n_p,n_s = O(log(1/epsilon)) for fixed r. This is an internal inconsistency or missing estimate about smoothness as r grows, not a circularity in which an output is identical to an input by construction. Similarly, Assumption 4.1 restricts the source to two-valued data on O(m) index subsets, so the abstract's claim of general time-dependent sources is an overclaim, not a circular step. No fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing conclusion reduces to a self-citation chain. The paper is therefore not circular; it has a correctness gap regarding the log-log overhead.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central construction rests on prior methods (Schrödingerization, autonomousization, stretching, and circuit decomposition lemmas), plus a restrictive source model introduced in this paper. The convergence claims depend on a stronger spectral accuracy premise than what is proved for the chosen finite-regularity extensions.

free parameters (3)
  • c0 = max_{t in [0,T]} ||f(t)||_{l_infinity}, bounded below by 1
    Normalization constant in the stretching transformation (Section 3.3) that converts the inhomogeneous ODE into a homogeneous one; it enters the source normalization and the success probability but is not fitted to the target solution.
  • r = 2 in the numerical example; generally r >= 2
    Smoothness order of the initial-data extension g(p) and delta approximation beta(xi); it sets the convergence rate O(Delta p^r) and O(Delta s^r) and controls the number of Fourier grid points in the extended dimensions.
  • L and S = L ~ log(1/epsilon)/pi, S ~ T/pi, chosen so exponential tails are O(epsilon)
    Truncation lengths of the p and s computational domains; they are chosen to make the exponential decay factors e^{-pi L + T/2} and e^{-pi S + T} smaller than epsilon, and they determine the qubit counts n_p and n_s.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Theorem 3.1: autonomousization via delta-function initial data in an extra dimension (cited from [10])
    The theorem converts the non-autonomous system into an autonomous Schrödinger-type system by introducing s and delta(s) initial data; it is stated without proof and is foundational to the circuit construction.
  • domain assumption Lemma 5.1: decomposition and error bound for variable-coefficient Hamiltonians (cited from [34])
    Used to design U3 and to bound the Trotter error for the curl Hamiltonian; its validity for the specific Maxwell Hamiltonian is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 4.1: source terms are piecewise constant with two values on small support subsets
    Restricts the type of time-dependent source terms that the circuit can encode efficiently; without it, the U2 circuit and the complexity bounds in Theorem 5.1 break down.
  • ad hoc to paper Essentially spectral accuracy for C^r initial data in the extended p and s dimensions
    This premise underlies the claim that the added dimensions cost only O(log log(1/epsilon)) qubits; it is stronger than the algebraic convergence O(Delta p^r) established in Lemma 5.4 for functions of finite Sobolev regularity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Schr\"odingerization based Quantum Circuits for Maxwell's Equation with time-dependent source terms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ET3HSNXA

@misc{pith2026241110999,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Schr\"odingerization based Quantum Circuits for Maxwell's Equation with time-dependent source terms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ET3HSNXA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10999}
}
abstract

The Schr\"odingerisation method combined with the autonomozation technique in \cite{cjL23} converts general non-autonomous linear differential equations with non-unitary dynamics into systems of autonomous Schr\"odinger-type equations, via the so-called warped phase transformation that maps the equation into two higher dimension. Despite the success of Schr\"odingerisation techniques, they typically require the black box of the sparse Hamiltonian simulation, suitable for continuous-variable based analog quantum simulation. For qubit-based general quantum computing one needs to design the quantum circuits for practical implementation. This paper explicitly constructs a quantum circuit for Maxwell's equations with perfect electric conductor (PEC) boundary conditions and time-dependent source terms, based on Schr\"odingerization and autonomozation, with corresponding computational complexity analysis. Through initial value smoothing and high-order approximation to the delta function, the increase in qubits from the extra dimensions only requires minor rise in computational complexity, almost $\log\log {1/\varepsilon}$ where $\varepsilon$ is the desired precision. Our analysis demonstrates that quantum algorithms constructed using Schr\"odingerisation exhibit polynomial acceleration in computational complexity compared to the classical Finite Difference Time Domain (FDTD) format.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10999 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Quantum circuit for Schr¨odingerisation of Equation ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Quantum circuit for the operator U˜ 1(τ ), where Iθ = Rz(−θ)P(θ). 4.2 Quantum circuits for U2(τ ) For any fixed l = (lns · · · l0) ∈ Is and j = (j3m−1 · · · j0) ∈ Il α, according to the notation in Equation (36) and the representation of spatial variable coefficient matrix in Equation (37), we define Hα Xp,lj = 1 2c0 (J l α,1 − J l α,0 )X ⊗ σ3,α ⊗ Θj ⊗ Θl ⊗ Dp, (46) Hα Xp,l = 1 2c0 J l α,0X ⊗ σ3,α ⊗ 1 ⊗3m ⊗ Θl ⊗ Dp,… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Quantum circuit for U x X,lj (2θ) and U x X,l(2θ) with I 1 j,3m = {0}, I 1 l,ns = {ns − 1}. Similarly, we can define CRYI 1 ,I 0 m+1 (2θ) and CRZI 1 ,I 0 m+1 (2θ). For the fixed l = (lns · · · l0) ∈ Is and j = (j3m−1 · · · j0) ∈ Il α, the index sets for control points are defined by I i j,3m = {k ∈ [3m] : jk = i}, I i l,ns = {k ∈ [ns] : lk = i}, i = 0, 1. (53) Using the definition provided in (52), we define the ope… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Quantum circuit for U x Xp,lj with θ = τθα,1 lp . Noting that Dp = PNp−1 k=0 1 L (k − Np 2 )|k⟩⟨k|, one gets the expression of U α Xp,lj , U α Xp,l as follows U α Xp,lj =  X k∈[Np] U α X,lj (kτθα,1 lp ) ⊗ |k⟩⟨k| U α X,lj (−Npτθα,1 lp ) ⊗ 1 ⊗np  , U α Xp,l =  X k∈[…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Quantum circuit for U x Xp,l with θ = τθα,1 l . Lemma 4.1. Given an operator of the form S = e iλσ01 ⊗ σ ⊗(n−1) 10 + e −iλσ10 ⊗ σ ⊗(n−1) 01 , where λ is a real number, there exits a unitary matrix U such that S = U I n (−λ)Λ(U I n (λ))† , where Λ = Z ⊗ σ ⊗(n−1) 11 . Th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Quantum circuit for Wj and Vx1 . We can express the tensor product of the Pauli matrices by Z ⊗ Y ⊗ X = (1 ⊗ UY ⊗ H) · Zσ,3 · (1 ⊗ U † Y ⊗ H), (59) X ⊗ Y ⊗ X = (H ⊗ UY ⊗ H) · Zσ,3 · (H ⊗ U † Y ⊗ H). (60) Here UY is defined as HP( π 2 )H and Zσ,3 represents Z ⊗3 . Apply…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Quantum circuit for Ux2 . (60), one has Ux2 = exp(−iHx2 τ ) = U˜XY X · CRZ∅,{3m+4} σ3m+1→3m+3 ( −2τ △x ) · CRZ∅,{1,2,··· ,m,3m+4} σ3m+1→3m+3 ( 2τ △x ) · U˜† XY X, where U˜XY X = 1 ⊗ H ⊗ UY ⊗ H ⊗ 1 ⊗3m. The circuit of Ux2 is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Simulation of electromagnetic fields by Schr¨odingerisation at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Quantum Wave Simulation with Sources and Loss Functions

    quant-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A framework encodes acoustic, Maxwell, and elastic wave equations as Hamiltonian simulation, with compact or rotationally symmetric sources and l2 loss measurements, claiming a quartic speed-up in 3D.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    D. An, A. M. Childs, and L. Lin. Quantum algorithm for linear non-unitary dynamics with near-optimal dependence on all parameters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03916. , 2023

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    D. An, D. Fang, and L. Lin. Time-dependent unbounded Hamiltonian simulation with vector norm scaling. Quantum, 5:459, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    D. An, D. Fang, and L. Lin. Time-dependent Hamiltonian simulation of highly oscillatory dynamics and superconvergence for schr¨ odinger equation.Quantum, 6:690, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    D. An, J. Liu, and L. Lin. Linear combination of Hamiltonian simulation for non-unitary dynamics with optimal state preparation cost. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 131(150603), 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C Bardin, R. Barends, and et al. Quan- tum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature, 574(7779):505–510, 2019. 25

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Assous, P

    F. Assous, P. Ciarlet, and S. Labrunie. Mathematical foundations of computational electro- magnetism. Springer International Publishing AG, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    D. W. Berry, A. M Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D Somma. Simulating Hamiltonian Dynamics with a truncated Taylor series. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 114(9), 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    D. W. Berry, A. M Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D Somma. Exponential improvement in precision for simulating sparse Hamiltonians. Forum of Mathematics, Sigma , 5, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    N. Bui, A. Reineix, and C. Guiffaut. Alternative quantum circuit implementation for 2d electromagnetic wave simulation with quasi-PEC modeling. IEEE MTT-S International Con- ference on Electromagnetic and Multiphysics Modeling and Optimization , 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Y. Cao, S. Jin, and N. Liu. Quantum simulation for time-dependent Hamiltonians – with ap- plications to non-autonomous ordinary and partial differential equations. arXiv:2312.02817v1, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Chakraborty, A

    S. Chakraborty, A. Gily´ en, and S. Jeffery. The power of block-encoded matrix powers: Im- proved regression techniques via faster Hamiltonian simulation. In Proceedings of the 46th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2019) , 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    A. M. Childs, D. Maslov, Y. Nam, N. J. Ross, and Y. Su. Toward the first quantum simulation with quantum speedup. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115(38):9456–9461, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    P. C. Costa, S. Jordan, and A. Ostrander. Quantum algorithm for simulating the wave equa- tion. Phys. Rev. A , 99(1):012323, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    DiVincenzo

    D. DiVincenzo. Quantum computation. Science, 270(5234):255–261, 1995

    1995

  7. [15]

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

    2023

  8. [16]

    J. Hu, S. Jin, N. Liu, and L. Zhang. Quantum circuits for partial differential equations via schr¨ odingerisation.ArXiv:2403.10032, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    J. Y. Huang, R. Y. Su, W. Han Lim, and et al. High-fidelity spin qubit operation and algorithmic initialization above 1 k. Nature, 627:8005, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    S. Jin, X. Li, N. Liu, and Y. Yu. Quantum simulation for partial differential equations with physical boundary or interface conditions. J. Comput. Phys. , 498:112707, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    S. Jin, X. Li, N. Liu, and Y. Yu. Quantum simulation for quantum dynamics with artificial boundary conditions. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. , 46(4):B403–B421, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Jin and N

    S. Jin and N. Liu. Quantum simulation of discrete linear dynamical systems and simple iterative methods in linear algebra. Proceedings of the Royal Society A , 480(2291):20230370, 2024. 26

    2024

  13. [21]

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and C. Ma. On Schr¨ odingerisation based quantum algorithms for linear dy- namical systems with inhomogeneous terms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14696. , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and C. Ma. Quantum simulation of Maxwell’s equations via schr¨ odingersation. ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal. , 58(5):1853-1879, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and C. Ma. Schr¨ odingerisation based computationally stable algorithms for ill-posed problems in partial differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.19123. , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and Y. Yu. Quantum simulation of partial differential equations via schrodin- gerisation: technical details. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.14703 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and Y. Yu. Quantum simulation of partial differential equations: Applications and detailed analysis. Phys. Rev. A , 108(3):032603, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and Y. Yu. Quantum circuits for the heat equation with physical boundary conditions via schr¨ odingerisation.arXiv:2407.15895, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    S. Jin, N. Liu, and Y. Yu. Quantum simulation of the Fokker-Planck equation via Schr¨ odingerisation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13585 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Kieferov´ a, A

    M. Kieferov´ a, A. Scherer, and D. W. Berry. Simulating the dynamics of time-dependent Hamiltonians with a truncated Dyson series. Phys. Rev. A , 99:042314, 13 pp., 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    B. Lo, V. Minden, and P. Colella. A real-space green’s function method for the numerical solution of Maxwell’s equations. COMM. APP. MATH. AND COMP. SCI. , 11:143–170, 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang. Optimal hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 118(1):010501, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang. Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization. Quantum, 3:163, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Nagy and S

    M. Nagy and S. G. Akl. Quantum computing: Beyond the limits of conventional computation. The International Journal of Parallel, Emergent and Distributed Systems , 22:123–135, 2002

    2002

  25. [33]

    S. J. Plimpton, S. G. Moore, A. Borner, A. K. Stagg, T. P. Koehler, J. R. Torczynski, and M. A. Gallis. Physics of Fluids , 31(8), 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Y. Sato, R. Kondo, I. Hamamura, T. Onodera, and N. Yamamoto. Hamiltonian simulation for time-evolving partial differential equation by scalable quantum circuits. arXiv:2402.18398, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Y. Sato, H. Tezuka, R. Kondo, and N. Yamamoto. Quantum algorithm for partial differential equations of non-conservative systems with spatially varying parameters. arXiv:2407.05019, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Schade, C

    M. Schade, C. B¨ osch, V. Hapla, and A. Fichtner. A quantum computing concept for 1-d elastic wave simulation with exponential speedup. Geophysical Journal International, 238(1):321–333, 2024. 27

    2024

  29. [37]

    J. Shen, T. Tang, and L. Wang. Spectral methods. Springer-Verlag Berliln Heidelberg, 2011

    2011

  30. [38]

    P.W. Shor. Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring. In: Proceedings of 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science , pages 124–134, 1994

    1994

  31. [39]

    A. Steane. Quantum computing. Rep. Progr. Phys., 61(2):117–173, 1998

    1998

  32. [40]

    A. Suau, G. Staffelbach, and H. Calandra. Practical quantum computing: Solving the wave equation using a quantum approach. ACM Trans. Quantum Comput. , 2(1):1–35, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Taflove, S

    A. Taflove, S. C. Hagness, and M. Piket-May. Computational electromagnetics: the finite- difference time-domain method. The Electrical Engineering Handbook, 3:629–670, 2005

    2005

  34. [42]

    Tornberg and B

    A.-K. Tornberg and B. Engquist. Numerical approximations of singular source terms in dif- ferential equations. J. Comput. Phys. , 200:462–488, 2004

    2004

  35. [43]

    Vahala, L

    G. Vahala, L. Vahala, M. Soe, and A. K. Ram. The effect of the pauli spin matri- ces on the quantum lattice algorithm for Maxwell equations in inhomogeneous media. 10.48550/arXiv.2010.12264, 2020

    2010 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    Vahala, L

    G. Vahala, L. Vahala, M. Soe, and A. K. Ram. Unitary quantum lattice simulations for Maxwell equations in vacuum and in dielectric media. J. Plasma. Phys. , 86(5):905860518, 2020

    2020

  37. [45]

    Vahala, L

    G. Vahala, L. Vahala, M. Soe, and A. K. Ram. One- and two-dimensional quantum lattice algorithms for Maxwell equations in inhomogeneous scalar dielectric media i: theory. Radiat. Eff. Defect. S. , 176(1):49–63, 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    Vahala, L

    G. Vahala, L. Vahala, M. Soe, and A. K. Ram. One- and two-dimensional quantum lattice algorithms for Maxwell equations in inhomogeneous scalar dielectric media ii: simulations. Radiat. Eff. Defect. S. , 176(2):64–72, 2021

    2021

  39. [47]

    R. Vale, T. M. D. Azevedo, I. C. S. Ara´ ujo, I. F. Araujo, and A. J. da Silva. Circuit decompo- sition of multicontrolled special unitary single-qubit gates. IEEE Transactions on Computer- Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems , 43:802–811, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    B. Wang, G. Miller, and P. Colella. A particle-in-cell method with adaptive phase-space remapping for kinetic plasmas. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. , 33:3509–3537, 2011

    2011

  41. [49]

    K. Yee. Numerical solution of initial boundary value problems involving Maxwell’s equations in isotropic media. IEEE Transactions on antennas and propagation , 14:302–307, 1966

    1966

  42. [50]

    Zhong, H

    H. Zhong, H. Wang, Y. Deng, and et al. Quantum computational advantage using photons. Science, 370(6523):1460–1463, 2020

    2020

  43. [51]

    S. Zuo, D. G. Do˜ noro, Y. Zhang, Y. Bai, and X. Zhao. Simulation of challenging electro- magnetic problems using a massively parallel finite element method solver. IEEE Access, 7:20346–20362, 2019. 28

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.