Quantum algorithms for Young measures: applications to nonlinear partial differential equations

Shi Jin, Nana Liu, Maria Lukacova-Medvidova and Yuhuan Yuan

arXiv: 2604.11825v1 · PDF · 11 April 2026
Categories: quant-ph, math-ph, math.MP
Licence: CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

Many nonlinear PDEs have singular or oscillatory solutions or may exhibit physical instabilities or uncertainties. This requires a suitable concept of physically relevant generalized solutions. Dissipative measure-valued solutions have been an effective analytical tool to characterize PDE behavior in such singular regimes. They have also been used to characterize limits of standard numerical schemes on classical computers. The measure-valued formulation of a nonlinear PDE yields an optimization problem with a linear cost functional and linear constraints, which can be formulated as a linear programming problem. However, this linear programming problem can suffer from the curse of dimensionality. In this article, we propose solving it using quantum linear programming (QLP) algorithms and discuss whether this approach can reduce costs compared to classical algorithms. We show that some QLP algorithms, such as the quantum central path algorithm, have up to polynomial advantage over the classical interior point method. For problems where one is interested in the dissipative weak solution, namely the expected values of the Young measure, we show that the QLP algorithms offer no advantage over direct classical solvers. Moreover, for random PDEs, there can be up to polynomial advantage in obtaining the Young measure over direct classical PDE solvers. This is a significant advantage over standard PDE solvers, since the Young measure provides a more detailed description of the solution. We also propose some open questions for future development in this direction.

Items 16

Definition

Definition 2.1

I2VS

u(t,x) is a weak solution to (?) if

\begin{aligned} \int_{0}^T \int_{\Omega} \bigg( \partial_t \psi(t,x) \cdot u(t,x) + \nabla_x \psi(t,x) : f(u(t,x)) \; \bigg) d x d t = 0, \end{aligned}

for all test functions \psi \in C^1_c((0,T) \times \Omega; \Bbb{R}^n). It satisfies the entropy condition if

\begin{aligned} \int_{0}^T \int_{\Omega} \left( \partial_t \tilde{\psi}(t,x) u(t,x) + \nabla_x \tilde{\psi}(t,x) \cdot q(u(t,x)) \; \right) d x d t \leq 0, \end{aligned}

for all test functions \tilde{\psi} \in C^1_c((0,T) \times \Omega), \tilde{\psi} \geq 0.

Definition

Definition 2.2

FLM8

The Young measure \mathcal{V}_{t,x} \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R}^n) with

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{V}_{0,x}(\cdot) = \delta(\cdot - u_0(x) ) \mbox{ for a.a. } x \in \Omega \end{aligned}

is a measure-valued solution of (?)-(?) if

\begin{aligned} \int_{0}^T \int_{\Omega} \left( \partial_t \psi(t,x) \cdot \int_{\mathbb{R}^n} \tilde{u} \; \mathrm{d}\mathcal{V}_{t,x}(\tilde{u}) + \nabla_x \psi(t,x) : \int_{\mathbb{R}^n} f(\tilde{u}) \; \mathrm{d}\mathcal{V}_{t,x}(\tilde{u}) \right) d x d t = 0, \end{aligned}

for all test functions \psi \in C^1_c((0,T) \times \Omega; \Bbb{R}^n);

\begin{aligned} \int_{0}^T \int_{\Omega} \left( \partial_t \tilde{\psi}(t,x) \int_{\mathbb{R}^n} \eta(\tilde{u}) \; \mathrm{d}\mathcal{V}_{t,x}(\tilde{u}) + \nabla_x \tilde{\psi}(t,x) \cdot \int_{\mathbb{R}^n} q(\tilde{u}) \; \mathrm{d}\mathcal{V}_{t,x}(\tilde{u}) \right) d x d t \leq 0, \end{aligned}

for all test functions \tilde{\psi} \in C^1_c((0,T) \times \Omega), \tilde{\psi} \geq 0.

Remark

Remark 2.1

U6LH

From a computational or numerical perspective, maximising entropy or minimizing energy makes the optimization convex and stable. It may eliminate high-frequency oscillations (common in high-resolution schemes) and ensure the convergence of the numerical scheme to the correct weak solution.

Example

Example 1

6BMF

Consider the inviscid Burgers equation with f(u)=u^2/2. Then one can take the entropy as

\eta(\xi) = -\xi^2.

Maximizing entropy (which in this example corresponds to minimizing the energy) avoids oscillations and selects a Dirac measure corresponding to a physically relevant solution. Furthermore, minimizing energy is equivalent to minimizing the variance of the solutions, thereby concentrating the measure.

Example

Example 2

2Q27

Consider the barotropic Euler system with

u = (\varrho, \mathbf{m}), \quad f(u)=\left( \mathbf{m}, \ \frac{\mathbf{m} \otimes \mathbf{m}}{\varrho} + p(\varrho) \mathbb{I}_d \right), \quad p = \varrho^{\gamma},

where \varrho,\mathbf{m}, p represent the density, momentum, and pressure of the fluid, respectively, and \gamma is the adiabatic index. One can take the entropy as

-\eta = \frac{|\mathbf{m}|^2}{2\varrho} + \frac{\varrho^{\gamma}}{\gamma-1}.

Example

Example 3

OEGN

Consider the full Euler system with the perfect gas law:

u = (\varrho, \mathbf{m}, E), \ f(u)=\left( \mathbf{m}, \ \frac{\mathbf{m} \otimes \mathbf{m}}{\varrho} + p \mathbb{I}_d, \frac{\mathbf{m}}{\varrho} (E+p) \right), \ p = (\gamma-1)\varrho e, \ E= \frac12 \frac{ |\mathbf{m}|^2}{\varrho}+ \varrho e,

where E,e represent the energy and specific internal energy of the fluid, respectively. The entropy reads

\eta = \varrho \ln{(p/\varrho^{\gamma})}.

Alternatively, one could also work with the governing equations for variables (\varrho, \mathbf{m}, \eta) and minimize the energy.

Remark

Remark 2.2

1AO2

It is easy to generalize this linear programming method to a broader class of models, such as the Allen-Cahn equation and the Navier-Stokes equations. The efficiency of the method applied to the Allen-Cahn equation will be demonstrated through numerical simulations in Section ?.

Definition

Definition 4.1

PZMM

The Young measure \mathcal{V}_{t,x,\omega} \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R}^n) is a measure-valued solution of (?)-(?) with

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{V}_{0,x,\omega}(\cdot) = \delta(\cdot - u_0(x,\omega) ) \mbox{ for a.a. } x \in \Omega, \ \omega \in D, \end{aligned}

\begin{aligned} \int_{0}^T \int_{\Omega} \int_D \left( \partial_t \psi(t,x) \int_{\mathbb{R}^n} \tilde{u} \; \mathrm{d}\mathcal{V}_{t,x,\omega}(\tilde{u}) + \nabla_x \psi(t,x) : \int_{\mathbb{R}^n} f(\tilde{u}) \; \mathrm{d}\mathcal{V}_{t,x,\omega}(\tilde{u}) \right) \phi(\omega) p(\omega) d \omega d x d t = 0, \end{aligned}

for all test functions \psi \in C^1_c((0,T) \times \Omega; \Bbb R^n), \phi \in C(D); and

\begin{aligned} \int_{0}^T \int_{\Omega} \int_D \left( \partial_t \tilde{\psi}(t,x) \int_{\mathbb{R}^n} \eta(\tilde{u}) \; \mathrm{d}\mathcal{V}_{t,x,\omega}(\tilde{u}) + \nabla_x \tilde{\psi}(t,x) \cdot \int_{\mathbb{R}^n} q(\tilde{u}) \; \mathrm{d}\mathcal{V}_{t,x,\omega}(\tilde{u}) \right)\tilde{\phi}(\omega) p(\omega) d \omega d x d t \leq 0, \end{aligned}

for all test functions \tilde{\psi} \in C^1_c((0,T) \times \Omega), \tilde{\phi} \in C(D), \tilde{\psi} \geq 0, \tilde{\phi} \geq 0.

Example

Example A.1 (Rarefaction wave)

XXJ0

The computational domain is [-3,3], and the outflow boundary condition is applied. The initial data is

u_0(x) = \begin{cases} -1,& \mbox{if}~ x < 0,\\ 2,& \mbox{if}~ x > 0. \end{cases}

In the experiment we take T=1 and [\xi_{\min}, \xi_{\max}] = [-1.05, 2.05].

Figure ? shows the measure characterized by F(T,x,\xi), i.e. \int_{K_{\xi}^l} F(T,x,\xi) d \xi or F_{kl}^{N_t}, solution u(T,x), energy \hat{E}(T,x), the evolution of total energy \int_{\Omega}\hat{E} dx and the total energy defects \int_{\Omega}\mathfrak{E} dx obtained with the discretization parameters (N_t,N_x,N_{\xi}) = (150,200,200). Further, the L^p-errors and corresponding rates on consecutively refined meshes are presented in Table ?.

Example

Example A.2 (Shock wave)

5AYK

The computational domain is [-3,3]. The initial data is

u_0(x) = \begin{cases} 2,& \mbox{if}~ x < 0,\\ -1,& \mbox{if}~ x > 0. \end{cases}

In the experiment we take T=1 and [\xi_{\min}, \xi_{\max}] = [-1.05, 2.05].

Figure ? shows the measure characterized by F(T,x,\xi), solution u(T,x), energy \hat{E}(T,x), the evolution of total energy \int_{\Omega}\hat{E} dx and the total energy defects \int_{\Omega}\mathfrak{E} dx obtained with (N_t,N_x,N_{\xi}) = (150,200,200). Further, the L^p-errors and corresponding rates on consecutively refined meshes are presented in Table ?.

Example

Example A.3

PQUV

The computational domain is [-3,3] and the periodic boundary condition is applied. The initial data are

u_0(x) = \begin{cases} \sin (\pi x) & \mbox{if}~ |x| \geq 1, \\ 3 & \mbox{if}~ x \in (-1,-0.5] \bigcup (0,0.5],\\ 1 & \mbox{if}~ x \in (-0.5,0] ,\\ 2 & \mbox{if}~ x \in (0.5,1]. \end{cases}

In this experiment, we set T=0.4 and [\xi_{\min}, \xi_{\max}] = [-1.05, 3.05].

Example

Example A.4 (Degond-Tang problem)

P0PN

The computational domain is chosen to be \Omega = [0,1] and the periodic boundary conditions are applied. The initial conditions read

\begin{aligned} \left(\varrho_0, \, m_0 \right)(x) = \begin{cases} (1,\, 1-\epsilon^2/2) & \mbox{ if } x \in [0, 0.2] \cup [0.8,1], \\ (1+\epsilon^2,\, 1) & \mbox{ if } x \in (0.2, 0.3], \\ (1,\, 1+\epsilon^2/2) & \mbox{ if } x \in (0.3, 0.7], \\ (1-\epsilon^2,\, 1) & \mbox{ if } x \in (0.7, 0.8]. \end{cases} \end{aligned}

In this experiment, we take \epsilon = 0.8, T=0.06 and (\varrho, m)\in [0.105, 1.805]\times[0.205,1.805].

Figure ? presents the density \varrho, momentum m, the evolution of total energy \int_{\Omega} \hat{E} dx and energy defect \int_{\Omega} \mathfrak{E} dx obtained with (N_t,N_x,N_{\varrho},N_{m}) = (200,300,151,151).

Example

Example A.5 (Two colliding acoustic waves)

G0RQ

The computational domain is set to \Omega = [-1,1] and the periodic boundary conditions are applied. The initial conditions are given as

\begin{aligned} \varrho_0(x) = 0.955 + 0.5 \epsilon (1-\cos(2\pi x)), \quad u_0(x) = -\mbox{sign}(x) \sqrt{2} (1-\cos(2\pi x)). \end{aligned}

In the experiment we set \epsilon = 0.1, T=0.01 and (\varrho, m) \in [0.805, 1.205]\times[-3.105,3.105].

Figure ? shows the density \varrho, momentum m, the evolution of total energy \int_{\Omega} \hat{E} dx and energy defect \int_{\Omega} \mathfrak{E} dx obtained with (N_t,N_x,N_{\varrho},N_{m}) = (50,100,51,201).

Example

Example A.6 (Riemann problem)

ZS1A

The computational domain is taken to be \Omega = [0,1] and the outflow boundary conditions are used. The initial conditions are chosen to be as follows

\begin{aligned} \varrho_0(x) = \begin{cases} 3 & \mbox{ if } x < 0.5, \\ 1 & \mbox{ if } x \geq 0.5, \end{cases} \quad m_0(x) = 0. \end{aligned}

In this experiment, we set T=0.06 and (\varrho, m) \in [0.505, 3.505]\times[-0.505,2.005].

Figure ? shows density \varrho, momentum m, the evolution of total energy \int_{\Omega} \hat{E} dx and energy defect \int_{\Omega} \mathfrak{E} dx obtained with (N_t,N_x,N_{\varrho},N_{m}) = (180,200,201,201).

Example

Example A.7 (Double interfaces)

2V1C

The computational domain is taken to be \Omega = [0,1]. The initial data read

\begin{aligned} u_0(x) = \tanh \left( \frac{ x - 0.25}{\sqrt{2}}\right) - \tanh \left( \frac{ x - 0.75}{\sqrt{2}}\right) -1. \end{aligned}

We take T = 0.02 and [\xi_{\min}, \xi_{\max}] = [-0.75, -0.55].

Figure ? shows the measure characterized by F(T,x,\xi), solution u(T,x), the evolution of total energy \int_{\Omega}\hat{E} dx, the defect of total energy \int_{\Omega}\mathfrak{E} dx as well as the defect of total regularized energy \int_{\Omega}\mathfrak{E}^{RE} dx obtained with (N_t,N_x,N_{U}) = (100,50,200).

Example

Example A.8

FP85

The computational domain is set to \Omega = [-1,1] and the initial data are chosen as follows

\begin{aligned} u_0(x) = \begin{cases} 1, & \mbox{ if } |x| < 0.5, \\ -1, & \mbox{ else.} \end{cases} \end{aligned}

In this experiment we take T = 0.02 and [\xi_{\min}, \xi_{\max}] = [-1.05, 1.05].

Figure ? presents the measure characterized by F(T,x,\xi), solution u(T,x), the evolution of total energy \int_{\Omega}\hat{E} dx, the defect of total energy \int_{\Omega}\mathfrak{E} dx, as well as the defect of total regularized energy \int_{\Omega}\mathfrak{E}^{RE} dx obtained with (N_t,N_x,N_{U}) = (150,80,100).

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2604.11825v1 by Shi Jin, Nana Liu, Maria Lukacova-Medvidova and Yuhuan Yuan, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2604/2604.11825.jsonl.