MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413298911 · doi:10.1038/s41534-025-01084-z

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

2025· article· en· W4413298911 on OpenAlexaff
Pedro C. S. Costa, Philipp Schleich, Mauro E. S. Morales, Dominic W. Berry

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Quantum Information · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersCentre of Excellence for Quantum Computation and Communication Technology, Australian Research CouncilAdvanced Research Projects Agency
KeywordsNonlinear systemAlgorithmQuantumOrder (exchange)Quantum computerComputer scienceQuantum algorithmDifferential equationMathematicsPhysicsQuantum mechanicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The solution of large systems of nonlinear differential equations is essential for many applications in science and engineering. We present three improvements to existing quantum algorithms based on the Carleman linearisation technique. First, we use a high-precision method for solving the linearised system that yields logarithmic dependence on the error and near-linear dependence on time. Second, we introduce a rescaling strategy that significantly reduces the cost, which would otherwise scale exponentially with the Carleman order, thus limiting quantum speedups for PDEs. Third, we derive tighter error bounds for Carleman linearisation. We apply our results to a class of discretised reaction-diffusion equations using higher-order finite differences for spatial resolution. We also show that enforcing a stability criterion independent of the discretisation can conflict with rescaling due to the mismatch between the max-norm and the 2-norm. Nonetheless, efficient quantum solutions remain possible when the number of discretisation points is constrained, as enabled by higher-order schemes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Quantum InformationSame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207