Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 44 references

A parameterized Wasserstein Hamiltonian flow approach for solving the Schr\"odinger equation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the time-dependent Schrödinger equation can be reformulated as a Hamiltonian flow on the space of probability push-forward maps, and that parameterizing these maps with Neural ODEs produces a training-free…

desk verdict Clean WHF reformulation of the TDSE with a useful Neural-ODE Fisher trick, but the parameterized reduction's approximation claim is unproven and the numerics stay qualitative. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.11762 v2 pith:AELZZB3B submitted 2025-05-17 math.NA cs.NA

Hao Wu , Shu Liu , Xiaojing Ye , Haomin Zhou This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 35Q4149Q2265P10
keywords SchrödingerequationWassersteinHamiltonianflowMadelungtransformpush-forwardmapNeuralODEgenerativemodeloptimaltransporthigh-dimensionalnumericalPDE
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 tries to establish a new numerical route to the time-dependent Schrödinger equation that avoids spatial grids. Using the Madelung transform, the quantum density and phase are governed by a Wasserstein Hamiltonian flow on the space of probability densities. The paper then restricts the dynamics to a family of push-forward maps realized by Neural ODEs, pulls back the Wasserstein metric onto the parameter space, and derives an ODE system for the network parameters. Solving this finite-dimensional ODE system yields approximate sample trajectories for the quantum density. The value of the claim is that it offers a potential way to handle high-dimensional systems where classical discretization methods fail.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the Madelung transform (3.4), which maps the complex wavefunction to a density–phase pair, and the identification of the TDSE with the Wasserstein Hamiltonian flow whose Hamiltonian (3.6) contains the kinetic energy, the external potential functional, and Fisher information. The paper lifts this flow to the space of diffeomorphisms via the push-forward map $T$, proving the Euler–Lagrange equation (4.5). For computation, it restricts $T$ to Neural-ODE push-forward maps and forms the pullback metric $G(\theta) = \int \partial_\theta T_\theta(z)^\top \partial_\theta T_\theta(z) \lambda(z)\, dz$. This metric converts the infinite-dimensional flow into the finite-dimensional Hamiltonian system (5.4) for the parameters $\theta$ and momenta $p$. Neural ODEs are chosen because they are invertible and give convenient access to the logarithmic density and hence the Fisher information term.

What would settle it

Run the proposed algorithm on a one- or two-dimensional linear Schrödinger equation whose exact density is sharply peaked and oscillates rapidly, compare the Wasserstein distance between the sample-based density $\rho_\theta(t)$ and the true $|\psi(t,\cdot)|^2$ over a long time interval, and monitor whether the distance remains small as the network width and sample count are increased; if the distance grows without bound, the parameterization does not capture the true evolution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the TDSE, via the Madelung transform and the identification of the quantum potential as the first variation of Fisher information, is exactly a Wasserstein Hamiltonian flow with Hamiltonian (3.6). Theorem 4.1 states that the critical point of the associated action satisfies the operator equation $\ddot{T}(z) = -\nabla_X \frac{\delta}{\delta\rho} \mathcal{F}(T_\sharp\lambda)\circ T(z)$, and that the push-forward density $T_\sharp\lambda$ solves the WHF. When $T$ is parameterized by Neural ODEs, the metric $G(\theta)$ in parameter space turns this into the Hamiltonian ODE system (5.4). The paper presents numerical experiments on a harmonic oscillator, a Gross-Pitaevskii equation, and a three-particle interactive system in 9 dimensions, showing sample histograms that match analytic solutions and a preserved Hamiltonian. The paper stops short of proving that the parameterized system approximates the infinite-dimensional flow with a controlled error; it lists this as an open question.

Load-bearing premise

The finite-dimensional family of Neural-ODE push-forward maps is assumed to be expressive enough that the solution of the projected Hamiltonian system (5.4) stays close to the true infinite-dimensional flow; the paper offers no error bound, and its own conclusion lists 'can the error be bounded theoretically in the Wasserstein metric?' as an open question.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The method requires no spatial grid or basis; it only needs samples from a reference distribution and an ODE solver, so it scales naturally with dimension.
  • The numerical scheme is training-free: the parameters are advanced by a symplectic Euler update and linear solves, not by minimizing a loss.
  • The reformulation combines density evolution and particle trajectories in a single self-contained system, in contrast to guiding-wave formulations which require a separately supplied guiding field.
  • If the approach generalizes, it offers a sampling-based alternative for high-dimensional quantum dynamics beyond the dimensions reachable by spectral or finite-difference methods.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If a rigorous Wasserstein error bound were established between the parameterized flow and the true TDSE density, the method would become a practical contender for dimensions around 4–10, where current grid methods struggle.
  • The same pullback-of-the-Wasserstein-metric construction could be applied to other Hamiltonian PDEs written as Wasserstein Hamiltonian flows, such as the Vlasov–Poisson system or mean-field game equations.
  • A natural test is to compare the algorithm against known solutions for wavefunctions with rapid phase oscillations, where the Fisher information term dominates and approximation errors would be most visible.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 reformulates the time-dependent Schrödinger equation (TDSE) (1.1) via the Madelung transform as a Wasserstein Hamiltonian flow, and then as a Hamiltonian system on the space of push-forward diffeomorphisms. Theorem 4.1 derives the second-order Euler-Lagrange equation (4.5) for the critical point of the action (4.4). The authors then restrict the maps to a Neural-ODE parameterized family, pull back the L2(λ) metric to parameter space, and obtain the finite-dimensional Hamiltonian system (5.4). A semi-implicit symplectic algorithm is proposed and tested on three examples: a quantum harmonic oscillator, the Gross-Pitaevskii equation in one, three, and six dimensions, and a 9D three-particle system. The paper claims that solving the parameterized system provides an approximate solution to the original infinite-dimensional flow, with no training of the neural network against data.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the method would offer a sampling-based, training-free alternative for high-dimensional TDSE, with potential practical value. The strongest parts of the paper are the clean derivation of Theorem 4.1 and the exact harmonic-oscillator example in Section 7.1, where an affine subfamily reproduces the true density evolution. The authors are also transparent in Section 8 that the Wasserstein error bound is open. However, the load-bearing claim that the reduced system (5.4) approximates the full flow (4.5) is not supported by any error estimate, and the numerical validation is largely qualitative. The significance is therefore conditional: the paper presents an interesting reformulation, but the algorithmic claim needs substantial additional support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, after Eq. (5.5)] The assertion that solving the parameterized system (5.4) "can provide an approximate solution Tθ(t) to the original flow (4.5)" is the central algorithmic claim of the paper, but no error bound or convergence statement connects the reduced dynamics to the full Wasserstein Hamiltonian flow. The reduced variational problem (5.3) minimizes the action over a prescribed finite-dimensional family Oθ; the Euler-Lagrange equations on Oθ coincide with the restriction of the full equations only if Oθ is totally geodesic or if the exact trajectory remains in Oθ, and neither condition is shown for the Neural-ODE family. Section 8 explicitly leaves the theoretical error bound in the Wasserstein metric as an open problem. To support the claim, the paper needs at least an a posteriori error estimate or a substantially weakened statement; without this, the algorithm's output is not shown to be a controlled approximation of the TDSE density.
  2. [Section 7.2, Figs. 2-5; Section 7.3, Fig. 8] For the Gross-Pitaevskii equation, the exact solution (7.10) is available, so reporting histograms only is not sufficient to quantify accuracy. The paper should include quantitative comparisons, such as L1 or L2 errors of the density, empirical Wasserstein distances, or errors in the mean and variance, as functions of time, and should study the sensitivity of the results to the number of samples N, the step size h, and the Neural-ODE width and depth. For the 9D example in Section 7.3 there is no ground truth; the Hamiltonian preservation shown in Figure 8 is a structural property of the reduced system (5.5) and can hold even when the trajectory is far from the true solution, so it does not by itself validate the accuracy of the method.
  3. [Section 5, Proposition 5.1] Proposition 5.1 is imported from the authors' earlier work [43] with the phrase "Mimicking the derivation of PWHF as detailed in [43]," yet this proposition is the foundation of the numerical method. The paper should either give a self-contained derivation or state the precise hypotheses needed, in particular the rank and conditioning of G(θ), the meaning and well-posedness of the pseudo-inverse G†, and whether the momentum p is guaranteed to lie in the range of G. Without this, the use of the pseudo-inverse in (5.4) and in Algorithm 6.1 is not fully justified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, proof of Theorem 4.1, Eq. (4.12)] Equation (4.12) has a sign error on the right-hand side: as printed it gives d/dt(λTdot) = + ∇(...), which would imply Tddot = +∇(...) rather than the stated (4.5). The sign inconsistency between (4.12) and (4.5) should be corrected.
  2. [Algorithm 6.1, lines 6-8] The algorithm computes ξ as the solution of G(θl)ξ = pl via MINRES, but Eq. (5.4a) defines θdot = G†p. When G is singular, the two are not equivalent; the relation between the pseudo-inverse formulation and the linear solve used in the algorithm should be clarified, as should the role of the fixed-point parameter γ and the stopping criterion for the inner iteration.
  3. [Throughout] There are numerous typos, including "physcis" in the introduction and "historgram" in the captions of Figures 2, 4, and 5; the manuscript would benefit from a careful proofreading pass.
  4. [Sections 3.2 and 3.3] The notation for the Fisher information is not consistent: FQ is used in (3.6)-(3.7) and in Appendix A, but the functional is also referred to as FQ in the text. The authors should define the notation once and use it consistently throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the TDSE-to-WHF reformulation and parameterized ODE system are derived from first principles or transparently cited prior work, with benchmarks used only as external validation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The Madelung transform maps the TDSE (1.1) to the system (3.5) by direct substitution; the Hamiltonian (3.6) is cited from prior work [40] and [10] as a known optimal-transport interpretation, not derived from the paper's own conclusions. Theorem 4.1 is proven in the text from the Euler-Lagrange equation and the continuity equation: the variation of F(T#lambda) is computed explicitly, yielding (4.12) and hence (4.5); the final consistency statement that T#lambda solves the WHF cites Proposition 2 of [10], but that statement is not needed to obtain the algorithmic system and is an external known result. The parameterized system (5.4) is introduced by replacing O with O_theta and invoking the authors' prior PWHF framework [43]; this is a transparent citation of a peer-reviewed, parameter-free general framework whose assumptions do not include the target TDSE result, so under the stated rules it is real evidence rather than circularity. No parameter is fitted to the benchmark solutions: the harmonic oscillator and GPE tests use analytic solutions only as comparison data, and initial conditions are taken from the problem data. The acknowledged absence of a Wasserstein error bound for the Neural-ODE reduction (Section 8) is a genuine approximation-theoretic limitation, but it is an open correctness question, not a reduction of the method's output to its inputs. The paper's central mathematical content is therefore self-contained, and the citations do not create a fitting loop or definitional equivalence.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation relies on the Wasserstein Hamiltonian flow formalism of [10] and the parameterized reduction of [43], both from the authors' group; the single-valued phase and positivity assumptions restrict the class of wavefunctions; the numerical section adds hand-chosen hyperparameters (network size, sample counts, step sizes, epsilon). No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Neural ODE width and depth = 2 hidden layers, 50 neurons each, tanh
    The same architecture is used for all experiments; no ablation or convergence study is reported.
  • Number of samples N for metric G = 10,000 (GPE), 12,000 (9D)
    Chosen 'intuitively' in Section 7.3; the sample size controls the accuracy of the pullback metric and the results depend on it.
  • Number of samples for potential F = 3,000,000 (9D)
    Used for the high-dimensional interaction potential; rationale given as linear cost, but no convergence check.
  • Time step h = 0.005 (GPE), 0.001 (9D)
    Step size for the symplectic scheme; no refinement study is shown.
  • Fixed-point iteration rate gamma = unspecified
    Parameter in Algorithm 6.1's inner fixed-point loop; no value or sensitivity analysis is given.
  • Regularization epsilon in 9D potential = 0.005
    Small parameter in the interaction potential (7.11), set by hand.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Madelung transform maps the TDSE to the coupled system (3.5) with single-valued phase Phi
    Remark 3.1 enforces single-valuedness, ruling out vortex configurations and bounding the method's domain; the Wallstrom inequivalence is cited.
  • domain assumption rho > 0 almost everywhere so that log-density, quantum potential, and square root are well-defined
    Stated after (3.5); excludes nodal surfaces in the wavefunction.
  • standard math A critical point of the action (4.4) exists and the Euler-Lagrange equation (4.5) is well-posed
    Theorem 4.1 is conditional on existence; Section 4 explicitly defers well-posedness to future work.
  • domain assumption The parameterized family Otheta can represent the exact flow T(t) well enough for the intended accuracy
    Section 5 replaces O by Otheta; no approximation or error estimate is provided, and Section 8 lists this as an open question.
  • domain assumption Neural ODE maps are invertible and the instantaneous change-of-variables formula gives log-density
    Relied on in Section 3.3 and Appendix A; inherited from [9], not proved here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A parameterized Wasserstein Hamiltonian flow approach for solving the Schr\"odinger equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AELZZB3B

@misc{pith2026250511762,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A parameterized Wasserstein Hamiltonian flow approach for solving the Schr\"odinger equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AELZZB3B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.11762}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we propose a new method to compute the solution of time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation (TDSE). Using push-forward maps and Wasserstein Hamiltonian flow, we reformulate the TDSE as a Hamiltonian system in terms of push-forward maps. The new formulation can be viewed as a generative model in the Wasserstein space, which is a manifold of probability density functions. Then we parameterize the push-forward maps by reduce-order models such as neural networks. This induces a new metric in the parameter space by pulling back the Wasserstein metric on density manifold, which further results in a system of ordinary differential equations (ODEs) for the parameters of the reduce-order model. Leveraging the computational techniques from deep learning, such as Neural ODE, we design an algorithm to solve the TDSE in the parameterized push-forward map space, which provides an alternative approach with the potential to scale up to high-dimensional problems. Several numerical examples are presented to demonstrate the performance of this algorithm.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.11762 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The blue curve shows the trajectory of b(t) − b(0) for the harmonic oscillator with quadratic potential example (7.6). 7.2. Gross-Pitaevskii equation. The Gross-Pitaevskii equation (GPE) is i ∂ ∂tψ(t, x) = − 1 2 ∆ψ(t, x) + V (x)ψ(t, x) + γ|ψ(t, x)| 2 (7.9) ψ(t, x), where γ ∈ R is a constant. The GPE is a special case of the TDSE (1.1) if taking FR(ρ) = R V (x) ρ(x)dx + γ 2 R ρ(x) 2dx. When V (x) ≡ 0, d = 1, γ = −2, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sample histogram of computed ρθ at different time t for 1D (d = 1) GPE. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 time t 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 mean x1 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Center of samples for the GPE with d = 3. The orange curve is the analytical values, the blue curve are obtained by samples generated by the push-forward Tθ(t) . 7.3. TDSE for system with three interactive-particles. Finally, we present a numerical example of solving a system with three interactive-particles. We consider the three particles in a 3D space, with the This manuscript is for review purposes only [PITH_F… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sample histogram of computed ρθ at different time t for 3D GPE. origin exerting an attractive force on each of them. We set the potential FR to be FR(ρ) = Z Z Z  − X k 3 ϵ + |zk| + X k<j 1 ϵ + [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sample histogram of computed ρθ at different time t for 6D GPE. where c1 = (1, 0, 0), c2 = (0, 1, 0), c3 = (0, 0, 1). We take the initial Φ0 as: Φ0(x) = x 2 2 − x 2 3 (x 2 2 + x 2 3 ) 0.4 + x 2 6 − x 2 4 (x 2 4 + x 2 6 ) 0.4 + x 2 7 − x 2 8 (x 2 7 + x 2 8 ) 0.4 (7.15) …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sample histogram of computed ρθ at different time t for 9D TDSE. 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 X 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Y 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Z z1 z2 z3 (a) t = 0 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 X 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Y 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Z z1 z2 z3 (b) t = 0.3 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 X 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Y 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Z z1 z2 z3 (c) t = 0.6…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Trajectories of an example triple (z1(t), z2(t), z3(t)) ∈ R 9 with zk(t) = (x3k−2(t), x3k−1(t), x3k(t)) ∈ R 3 for k = 1, 2, 3 at different time slots t for the interactive system experiment which is a 9D TDSE. This manuscript is for review purposes only [PITH_FULL_IMA…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of the kinetic energy, interactive potential, and Hamiltonian in the numerical simulation for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [43]

    H. Wu, S. Liu, X. Ye, and H. Zhou , Parameterized wasserstein hamiltonian flow , SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 63 (2025), pp. 360–395

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    M. H. Anderson, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell , Observation of bose-einstein condensation in a dilute atomic vapor , Science, 269 (1995), pp. 198–201, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.269.5221. 198, https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.269.5221.198, https://arxiv.org/abs/https://www.science.org/ doi/pdf/10.1126/sc...

    work page doi:10.1126/science.269.5221 1995

  3. [2]

    Antoine, W

    X. Antoine, W. Bao, and C. Besse, Computational methods for the dynamics of the nonlinear schr¨ odinger/gross–pitaevskii equations, Computer Physics Communications, 184 (2013), pp. 2621–2633

    work page 2013

  4. [3]

    Arjovsky, S

    M. Arjovsky, S. Chintala, and L. Bottou , Wasserstein generative adversarial networks , in International conference on machine learning, PMLR, 2017, pp. 214–223

    2017

  5. [4]

    Bao and Y

    W. Bao and Y. Cai , Mathematical theory and numerical methods for bose-einstein condensation , Kinetic and Related Models, 6 (2013), pp. 1–135, https://doi.org/10.3934/krm.2013.6.1, /article/id/4105f74e-2db0-4c66-a27e-3c5f7e92f67a

    doi:10.3934/krm.2013.6.1 2013

  6. [5]

    W. Bao, S. Jin, and P. A. Markowich, Numerical study of time-splitting spectral discretizations of nonlinear schr¨ odinger equations in the semiclassical regimes , SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 25 (2003), pp. 27–64, https://doi. org/10.1137/S1064827501393253, https://doi.org/10.1137/S1064827501393253, https://arxiv.org/abs/https://doi.org/ 10.1137...

    doi:10.1137/s1064827501393253 2003

  7. [6]

    Berndl, D

    K. Berndl, D. D ¨urr, S. Goldstein, G. Peruzzi, and N. Zangh ´ı, On the global existence of bohmian mechanics , Com- munications in Mathematical Physics, 173 (1995), pp. 647–673

    work page 1995

  8. [7]

    Bohm, A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ”hidden” variables

    D. Bohm, A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ”hidden” variables. i, ii , Physical review, 85 (1952), pp. 180–193, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.85.180, https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.85.180

    doi:10.1103/physrev.85.180 1952

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    Carleo and M

    G. Carleo and M. Troyer , Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks , Science, 355 (2017), pp. 602–606, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag2302, https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science. aag2302, https://arxiv.org/abs/https://www.science.org/...

    2017 doi

  2. [9]

    R. T. Chen, Y. Rubanova, J. Bettencourt, and D. K. Duvenaud , Neural ordinary differential equations , Advances in neural information processing systems, 31 (2018)

    2018

  3. [10]

    S.-N. Chow, W. Li, and H. Zhou , Wasserstein hamiltonian flows , Journal of Differential Equations, 268 (2020), pp. 1205– This manuscript is for review purposes only. PARAMETERIZED SCHR¨ODINGER EQUATION 15 1219

    2020

  4. [11]

    Dekker, Classical and quantum mechanics of the damped harmonic oscillator , Physics Reports, 80 (1981), pp

    H. Dekker, Classical and quantum mechanics of the damped harmonic oscillator , Physics Reports, 80 (1981), pp. 1–110

    1981

  5. [12]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Quantum mechanics of many-electron systems, Proceedings of The Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 123 (1929), pp. 714–733

    1929

  6. [13]

    D¨urr, S

    D. D¨urr, S. Goldstein, R. Tumulka, and N. Zangh´ı, Bohmian mechanics, in Compendium of quantum physics, Springer, 2009, pp. 47–55

    2009

  7. [14]

    W. E and B. Yu , The deep ritz method: a deep learning-based numerical algorithm for solving variational problems , Communications in Mathematics and Statistics, 6 (2018), pp. 1–12

    2018

  8. [15]

    Fevens and H

    T. Fevens and H. Jiang, Absorbing boundary conditions for the schr¨ odinger equation, SIAM Journal on Scientific Comput- ing, 21 (1999), pp. 255–282, https://doi.org/10.1137/S1064827594277053, https://doi.org/10.1137/S1064827594277053, https://arxiv.org/abs/https://doi.org/10....

    1999 doi

  9. [16]

    Goldberg, H

    A. Goldberg, H. M. Schey, and J. L. Schwartz , Computer-Generated Motion Pictures of One-Dimensional Quantum- Mechanical Transmission and Reflection Phenomena , American Journal of Physics, 35 (1967), pp. 177–186, https:// doi.org/10.1119/1.1973991, https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1...

    1967 doi

  10. [17]

    Goodfellow, J

    I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y. Bengio , Generative adversarial nets , Advances in neural information processing systems, 27 (2014)

    2014

  11. [18]

    Guerra and L

    F. Guerra and L. M. Morato , Quantization of dynamical systems and stochastic control theory , Physical review D, 27 (1983), p. 1774

    1983

  12. [19]

    J. Han, A. Jentzen, et al. , Deep learning-based numerical methods for high-dimensional parabolic partial differential equations and backward stochastic differential equations , Communications in mathematics and statistics, 5 (2017), pp. 349–380

    2017

  13. [20]

    J. Han, L. Zhang, and W. E , Solving many-electron schr¨ odinger equation using deep neural networks, Journal of Com- putational Physics, 399 (2019), p. 108929, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2019.108929, https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S00219...

    2019

  14. [21]

    Hermann, Z

    J. Hermann, Z. Sch ¨atzle, and F. No ´e, Deep-neural-network solution of the electronic schr¨ odinger equation , Nature Chemistry, 12 (2020), pp. 891–897

    2020

  15. [22]

    S. Jin, H. Liu, S. Osher, and Y.-H. R. Tsai , Computing multivalued physical observables for the semiclassical limit of the schr¨ odinger equation, Journal of Computational Physics, 205 (2005), pp. 222–241

    2005

  16. [23]

    J. D. Lafferty, The density manifold and configuration space quantization , Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 305 (1988), pp. 699–741

    1988

  17. [24]

    D. Lu, H. Wang, M. Chen, L. Lin, R. Car, E. Weinan, W. Jia, and L. Zhang , 86 pflops deep potential molecular dynamics simulation of 100 million atoms with ab initio accuracy , Computer Physics Communications, 259 (2021), p. 107624

    2021

  18. [25]

    Mocz and S

    P. Mocz and S. Succi , Numerical solution of the nonlinear schr¨ odinger equation using smoothed-particle hydrodynamics, Phys. Rev. E, 91 (2015), p. 053304, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.91.053304, https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevE.91.053304

    2015 doi

  19. [26]

    Nelson, Derivation of the schr¨ odinger equation from newtonian mechanics, Physical review, 150 (1966), p

    E. Nelson, Derivation of the schr¨ odinger equation from newtonian mechanics, Physical review, 150 (1966), p. 1079

    1966

  20. [27]

    Orlova, A

    E. Orlova, A. Ustimenko, R. Jiang, P. Y. Lu, and R. Willett , Deep stochastic mechanics , arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19685, (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  21. [28]

    D. Pfau, J. S. Spencer, A. G. Matthews, and W. M. C. Foulkes , Ab initio solution of the many-electron schr¨ odinger equation with deep neural networks , Physical review research, 2 (2020), p. 033429

    2020

  22. [29]

    L. P. L. P. Pitaevskii, Bose-Einstein condensation / Lev Pitaevskii, Sandro Stringari. , International series of monographs on physics ; 116, Clarendon Press, Oxford ;, 2003

    2003

  23. [30]

    O. V. Prezhdo and C. Brooksby , Quantum backreaction through the bohmian particle , Phys. Rev. Lett., 86 (2001), pp. 3215–3219, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.3215, https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.3215

    2001 doi

  24. [31]

    J. C. Pu, J. Li, and Y. Chen , Solving localized wave solutions of the derivative nonlinear schr¨ odinger equation using an improved pinn method, Nonlinear Dynamics, 105 (2021), pp. 1723 – 1739

    2021

  25. [32]

    Raissi, P

    M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G. E. Karniadakis, Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solv- ing forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations , Journal of Computational physics, 378 (2019), pp. 686–707

    2019

  26. [33]

    Reddiger and B

    M. Reddiger and B. Poirier , Towards a mathematical theory of the madelung equations: Takabayasi’s quantization condition, quantum quasi-irrotationality, weak formulations, and the wallstrom phenomenon , Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 56 (2023), p. 193001

    2023

  27. [34]

    Reginatto, Derivation of the equations of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics using the principle of minimum fisher information, Physical Review A, 58 (1998), p

    M. Reginatto, Derivation of the equations of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics using the principle of minimum fisher information, Physical Review A, 58 (1998), p. 1775

    1998

  28. [35]

    Ruthotto, S

    L. Ruthotto, S. J. Osher, W. Li, L. Nurbekyan, and S. W. Fung , A machine learning framework for solving high- dimensional mean field game and mean field control problems , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117 (2020), pp. 9183–9193

    2020

  29. [36]

    Shibata , Absorbing boundary conditions for the finite-difference time-domain calculation of the one-dimensional schr¨ odinger equation, Phys

    T. Shibata , Absorbing boundary conditions for the finite-difference time-domain calculation of the one-dimensional schr¨ odinger equation, Phys. Rev. B, 43 (1991), pp. 6760–6763, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.43.6760, https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.43.6760

    1991 doi

  30. [37]

    Y. Song, J. Sohl-Dickstein, D. P. Kingma, A. Kumar, S. Ermon, and B. Poole , Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations, in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  31. [38]

    Soriano, E

    A. Soriano, E. A. Navarro, J. A. Porti, and V. Such , Analysis of the finite difference time domain technique to solve the Schr¨ odinger equation for quantum devices , Journal of Applied Physics, 95 (2004), pp. 8011–8018, https: //doi.org/10.1063/1.1753661, https://doi.org/10....

    2004 doi

  32. [39]

    Villani et al

    C. Villani et al. , Optimal transport: old and new , vol. 338, Springer, 2009

    2009

  33. [40]

    von Renesse , An optimal transport view of schr¨ odinger’s equation , Canadian Mathematical Bulletin, 55 (2012), p

    M.-K. von Renesse , An optimal transport view of schr¨ odinger’s equation , Canadian Mathematical Bulletin, 55 (2012), p. 858–869, https://doi.org/10.4153/CMB-2011-121-9. This manuscript is for review purposes only. 16 H. WU, S. LIU, X. YE, AND H. ZHOU

    2012 doi

  34. [41]

    T. C. Wallstrom , Inequivalence between the schr¨ odinger equation and the madelung hydrodynamic equations , Physical Review A, 49 (1994), p. 1613

    1994

  35. [42]

    B. Wu, O. Hennigh, J. Kautz, S. Choudhry, and W. Byeon , Physics informed rnn-dct networks for time-dependent partial differential equations, in International Conference on Conceptual Structures, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    Y. Zang, G. Bao, X. Ye, and H. Zhou , Weak adversarial networks for high-dimensional partial differential equations , Journal of Computational Physics, 411 (2020), p. 109409. Appendix A. Evaluation of Fisher information. We denotex =Tθ(z) and consider evaluating the parameteri...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.