Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 77 references

Quantum computing of chirality imbalance in SU(2) gauge theory

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 claims that a variational quantum algorithm with Monte Carlo sampling reproduces exact diagonalization of the thermal chiral condensate in 1+1D SU(2) gauge theory, with sampling cost expected to grow only polynomially with…

desk verdict Credible proof-of-principle for variational thermal-state preparation in 1+1D SU(2), but the polynomial-scaling claim is asserted, not shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18869 v3 pith:P3O5QKWG submitted 2024-11-28 hep-ph hep-lathep-thnucl-thquant-ph

Guofeng Zhang , Xingyu Guo , Enke Wang , Hongxi Xing (QuNu Collaboration) This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-lathep-thnucl-thquant-ph
keywords chiralcondensateSU(2)gaugetheoryvariationalquantumalgorithmMonteCarlosamplingGibbsstatesymmetryrestorationfinitechemicalpotentiallattice
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 claims that a variational quantum algorithm can compute the thermal chiral condensate—the order parameter for spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking—in a 1+1 dimensional SU(2) non-Abelian gauge theory at finite temperature and chemical potential. The algorithm prepares the Gibbs state by minimizing free energy with a QAOA circuit, and a Monte Carlo sampling of eigenstates is proposed to keep the cost from growing exponentially with qubit number. The results on 8- and 12-qubit systems match exact diagonalization, and a run on IBM quantum hardware also matches. If the claimed polynomial scaling holds, this offers a route to finite-density QCD questions that classical lattice Monte Carlo cannot reach because of the sign problem.

What carries the argument

The central object is a symmetry-preserving QAOA unitary $U(\theta)$ that is meant to rotate a computational-basis state into an energy eigenstate of the gauge-fixed Hamiltonian. The machinery has three parts: a purely fermionic lattice Hamiltonian obtained by eliminating the SU(2) gauge links with the transformation $\Theta$ and Gauss's law; the Jordan-Wigner mapping of that Hamiltonian to Pauli operators; and a variational free-energy minimization in which the Gibbs state is written as $\rho(\theta)=\sum_i P_i U(\theta)|\varphi_i\rangle\langle\varphi_i|U(\theta)^\dagger$, with Boltzmann probabilities $P_i=e^{-\beta E_i}/Z$. Because only the probabilities depend on temperature, the same optimized $U(\theta)$ serves for every $T$; a Metropolis-like Monte Carlo sampling then generates the states that dominate the thermal average $\langle O\rangle = (1/N)\sum_i \langle\varphi_i|U^\dagger O U|\varphi_i\rangle$.

What would settle it

Measure the number of Monte Carlo samples required to match exact diagonalization as the qubit count grows from 8 to 10, 12, 14, and 16; if the required sample count grows exponentially rather than as a power law, the central scaling claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the chiral condensate of a 1+1D SU(2) gauge theory can be obtained from a Gibbs state built from a symmetry-preserving QAOA circuit whose variational parameters are optimized once and then reused at all temperatures and chemical potentials, with Monte Carlo sampling supplying the thermal weights. The authors state this is the first direct quantum-computer simulation of chiral symmetry breaking in a non-Abelian gauge theory. After eliminating the gauge fields through a local gauge transformation and Gauss's law, and mapping the resulting fermionic Hamiltonian to qubits via the Jordan-Wigner transformation, they encode $\langle \bar\psi\psi\rangle$ as a sum of single-site number operators with alternating signs. They report that the condensate saturates at $-4$ as $T\to 0$, decreases monotonically with temperature, and only vanishes as $T\to\infty$, while increasing chemical potential suppresses the condensate and, at zero temperature, drives a ground-state change when $\mu$ is large. The agreement with exact diagonalization on 8 and 12 qubits, and with an 8-qubit run on IBM hardware, is the evidence offered for the claim.

Load-bearing premise

The entire approach rests on the assumption that a fixed, polynomial-sized set of sampled states—and a QAOA circuit optimized at one temperature—can stand in for the exponentially many energy eigenstates that matter at every temperature and chemical potential.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single variational optimization, followed by Monte Carlo sampling, yields the thermal chiral condensate across the whole temperature and chemical-potential plane of the 1+1D SU(2) model.
  • The 8-qubit demonstration on IBM hardware with a shallower, non-symmetry-preserving ansatz still agrees with exact diagonalization, suggesting near-term devices can run the algorithm.
  • Because the method prepares states directly rather than sampling a sign-oscillating weight, it avoids the sign problem that blocks classical Monte Carlo at finite chemical potential.
  • If the sampled-state count grows only polynomially with system size, as the paper expects, the method can reach lattice sizes beyond exact diagonalization.
  • The computed condensate reproduces the expected physics—spontaneous breaking at low temperature, restoration only as $T\to\infty$, and a ground-state change at large chemical potential—so the algorithm is a viable probe of the model's phase structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the paper leaves implicit: if the polynomial-scaling assumption holds, the same recipe is a natural candidate for the Schwinger model or higher-dimensional SU(2)/SU(3) lattices, where the number of conserved sectors and the Hilbert-space dimension grow much faster.
  • The paper does not emphasize it, but the hardware run used an ansatz that no longer preserves quantum numbers while still matching exact diagonalization, which implicitly suggests that symmetry preservation is a convenience rather than a requirement—a testable claim that could widen the class of usable circuits.
  • A test the paper does not report: comparing the optimized eigenstates against exact ones at high temperature, where high-energy states contribute, would directly check the one-optimization-for-all-temperatures assumption.
  • An extension the authors do not pursue: mapping the zero-temperature, large-chemical-potential ground-state change as a function of $\mu/g$ on larger lattices could give classical lattice methods a target to check once sign-problem-free techniques catch up.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a variational quantum algorithm for computing the thermal chiral condensate in a 1+1-dimensional SU(2) lattice gauge theory. The method represents the Gibbs state as a mixture of U(θ)|φ_i⟩ with Boltzmann weights computed from diagonal matrix elements of U†HU, optimizes U(θ) by free-energy minimization at one temperature using small random subsets of computational basis states, and then uses Metropolis sampling over the computational basis to estimate thermal averages. The authors apply this procedure to an 8-qubit staggered-fermion encoding, compare with exact diagonalization for several bare masses and chemical potentials, present a 12-qubit comparison for m/g=5, and include a demonstration on IBM's ibm_sherbrooke device using a reduced-depth ansatz. They conclude that the method reproduces exact diagonalization and extends to larger systems with polynomially many Monte Carlo samples.

Significance. The core numerical benchmark—agreement of the full-basis variational calculation with exact diagonalization in Fig. 1—is a useful and encouraging demonstration; the algorithm is described concretely enough to be reproduced, and the 12-qubit Monte Carlo comparison is a nontrivial check. If the polynomial-scaling and approximate-diagonalization assumptions could be substantiated, the approach would be a meaningful step toward finite-density gauge-theory studies on near-term hardware. The predicted T- and μ-dependence of the chiral condensate is a concrete, falsifiable benchmark. At present, however, the scalable part of the claim rests on one observable at two system sizes with no error bars, and the hardware section tests a different (non-sampling) protocol, so the broader significance is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II C, Eq. (22)] The parametrized state in Eq. (22) reproduces the Gibbs state only if U(θ) approximately diagonalizes H in the computational basis, so that the Boltzmann weights P_i are built from the true energy eigenvalues and the off-diagonal elements of U†HU can be neglected. The paper minimizes the free energy over a p=3 QAOA circuit but reports no measure of the residual off-diagonal part of U†HU and no diagnostic relating the variational free-energy minimum to the exact eigenstate basis. Since one agreeing observable (the chiral condensate) does not certify that the sampled distribution is Gibbs, I request a quantitative residual (e.g., the norm of the off-diagonal part of U†HU) or a comparison of additional observables and/or the full density matrix for the 8-qubit system.
  2. [Sec. II C, Monte Carlo scaling paragraph] The statement that 'when the system becomes large, the total number of states increases exponentially, while the number of sampled states is expected to increase only by a power law' is an unsupported assertion. The evidence consists of M=1000 for 256 states and M=1000/2000 for 4096 states; no derivation, no autocorrelation or mixing-time analysis, and no larger-system data are given. The Metropolis sampling efficiency depends on the spectral structure of U†HU and on the proposal distribution, and the paper's main claimed advantage over exact diagonalization rests on this point. Please either provide a complexity argument, add scaling data with diagnostics (e.g., effective sample size, acceptance rates, autocorrelation times), or explicitly temper the scalability claim.
  3. [Sec. III, statistical errors and hardware results] The manuscript states that 'statistical errors are not shown' and argues that hardware errors dominate; however, without error bars or effective sample sizes, the agreement between the Monte Carlo sampling and exact diagonalization in Figs. 2 and 3 cannot be quantitatively assessed. In addition, the hardware experiment in Fig. 5 uses the alternative ansatz of Eq. (25), with parameters optimized classically, and computes the chiral condensate by averaging over all 256 eigenstates on the QPU; it therefore does not exercise the proposed Monte Carlo sampling procedure or its large-system extension. The text should report autocorrelation-aware error bars for the classical Monte Carlo results and state explicitly that the hardware demonstration validates circuit execution of a fixed unitary rather than the sampling algorithm.
  4. [Sec. II C and Sec. III, temperature extrapolation] The algorithm optimizes U(θ) at a single temperature and then uses the same parameters for all temperatures, relying on the claim that U represents the energy eigenstates. The p=3 ansatz is approximate, and the paper gives no evidence that the optimized U continues to represent the relevant excited states at high T (where higher-lying states contribute to the Gibbs average) or that the free-energy optimization at one temperature controls the approximation error at others. A plot of the residual off-diagonal norm or of energy errors versus state index and temperature would make this assumption testable.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II C, after Eq. (22)] The partition function implicit in P_i after the substitution U is not explicitly defined; please write Z = Σ_i exp(−β⟨φ_i|U†HU|φ_i⟩) to remove ambiguity.
  2. [Sec. III, Fig. 3] The right panel appears to use the same axis labels as the left; please add panel labels and clarify whether the plotted quantity is ⟨ψ̄ψ⟩/g or ⟨ψψ⟩/g, which is written inconsistently in the figure and caption.
  3. [Eq. (15)] The hopping term in the qubit Hamiltonian would benefit from a definition of σ±_n and from checked parentheses; as printed, it is hard to verify against the fermionic form in Eq. (11).
  4. [Sec. III, Fig. 1 caption] The phrase 'all configurations are considered' is unclear; the text later explains that the VQA uses the full computational basis, but the caption should state this explicitly.
  5. [Sec. II C, optimization step] The statement that M=20 configurations per step 'suffices' for 8 qubits needs a convergence criterion or a comparison with the full-basis result to be quantitative.
  6. [Sec. IV and abstract] The phrase 'first direct simulation' should be qualified, since the hardware run uses an 8-qubit truncated model, classically optimized parameters, and the reduced ansatz of Eq. (25); the claim as written is broader than the demonstrated scope.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the variational parameters minimize the free energy of the lattice Hamiltonian, the chiral condensate is not used in the cost function, and all reported comparisons are against independent exact diagonalization.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The variational parameters θ are obtained by minimizing the free energy built from the Gibbs-state ansatz of Eq. (22), where the Boltzmann weights are determined by the diagonal elements ⟨φ_i|U(θ)†HU(θ)|φ_i⟩ of the dressed Hamiltonian; the reported observable, the chiral condensate ⟨ψ̄ψ⟩ of Eq. (18), does not appear in the cost function and is evaluated only after optimization via Eq. (24). Agreement with exact diagonalization (Figs. 1-5) is therefore an independent benchmark rather than a fit of the answer. The Monte Carlo sampling is a Metropolis procedure over computational-basis states weighted by e^{-βE_i}, with E_i the diagonal elements of U†HU; again the target observable is not used to construct the weights. The assertion that the number of sampled states grows only polynomially with system size (Sec. II C) is an extrapolation from the 8- and 12-qubit tests rather than a derived result, but an unproven scaling assumption is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction. Self-citations (e.g., QuNu Refs. [27-29,38]) are contextual and not load-bearing: the thermal-state method is described in the paper and validated against exact diagonalization, not against those prior works. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The paper is self-benchmarked against external exact diagonalization, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical results rest on standard lattice-gauge axioms plus two ad hoc algorithm assumptions: that a fixed shallow QAOA circuit can capture the relevant eigenstates, and that Metropolis sampling over computational basis states converges with polynomially many samples. Neither is proven. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • QAOA variational angles theta_ij = not reported
    Optimized by free-energy minimization at one temperature; all subsequent temperatures reuse these parameters. Values are not given, so the result cannot be reproduced from the paper alone.
  • QAOA layer count p = 3
    Chosen by hand; no convergence study is shown, and the claim that p=3 suffices for larger systems is asserted.
  • Monte Carlo sample count M = 1000 (8 and 12 qubits), 2000 (12 qubits)
    Selected by hand; the paper states the number of required samples grows only polynomially, but no scaling law or error analysis is provided.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Kogut-Susskind lattice Hamiltonian with staggered fermions is the starting model (Eq. 3).
    The physics claims are made for this discretized Hamiltonian; the continuum limit is not addressed.
  • domain assumption Gauge links can be eliminated via the gauge transformation Theta and Gauss's law with open boundary condition R_{-1}=0 (Eqs. 9-12).
    This is a standard reduction in 1+1D, but the choice of open boundary condition affects the spectrum and the chiral condensate; no check of boundary-condition dependence is provided.
  • standard math Jordan-Wigner transformation maps fermions to Pauli operators (Eq. 13).
    Standard for 1D spinless fermions; introduces non-local strings, implemented in the qubit Hamiltonian Eq. 15.
  • ad hoc to paper A finite-depth QAOA circuit U(theta) preserves the Hamiltonian's symmetries and can represent the relevant energy eigenstates (Eq. 23).
    Central to the algorithm; only validated indirectly for 8 and 12 qubits by agreement with exact diagonalization, not guaranteed for larger systems.
  • ad hoc to paper Metropolis sampling over computational basis states after applying U(theta) yields the Gibbs ensemble with polynomially many samples (Sec II C).
    The paper states this is expected but provides no proof; the sampling distribution is determined by approximate energies from the optimized U, so any bias in U propagates into the thermal average.
  • domain assumption A 4-site (8-qubit) lattice with explicit fermion mass captures the chiral symmetry breaking and restoration behavior relevant to QCD (Sec III).
    The condensate saturates at -4 for all m/g at T=0, and no phase transition is seen; finite-volume and explicit symmetry breaking effects dominate, so extrapolation to continuum QCD is unjustified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum computing of chirality imbalance in SU(2) gauge theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P3O5QKWG

@misc{pith2026241118869,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum computing of chirality imbalance in SU(2) gauge theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P3O5QKWG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18869}
}
read the original abstract

We implement a variational quantum algorithm to investigate the chiral condensate in a 1+1 dimensional SU(2) non-Abelian gauge theory. The algorithm is evaluated using a proposed Monte Carlo sampling method, which allows the extension to large qubit systems. The obtained results through quantum simulations on classical and actual quantum hardware are in good agreement with exact diagonalization of the lattice Hamiltonian, revealing the phenomena of chiral symmetry breaking and restoration as functions of both temperature and chemical potential. Our findings underscore the potential of near-term quantum computing for exploring QCD systems at finite temperature and density in non-Abelian gauge theories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18869 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The chiral condensate as a function of temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The chiral condensate as a function of temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The chiral condensate as a function of temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The chiral condensate as a function of temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The chiral condensate as a function of temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Then, minimize the free energy with regard to the parameterized mixed state and output the final parameters θ

    Randomly select a set of M states |φi⟩ in an or- thonormal basis (here we use the computational ba- sis for simplicity), and construct the initial mixed state from the chosen pure states. Then, minimize the free energy with regard to the parameterized mixed state and output the final parameters θ

    work page

  2. [2]

    Using the previously obtained parame- ters as initial parameters to perform a variation on the free energy, and subsequently obtain updated parameters

    Update the mixed state by choosing another set of M states. Using the previously obtained parame- ters as initial parameters to perform a variation on the free energy, and subsequently obtain updated parameters. 5

    work page

  3. [3]

    The advantage of the QAOA is that U (θ) preserves the same symmetries as H

    Repeat step 2 until the parameters do not change considering the designed precision. The advantage of the QAOA is that U (θ) preserves the same symmetries as H. This ensures that all states that are related by conserved symmetries are optimized simul- taneously, thus accelerating the optimization. We have tested that the required number of configurations ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    In practice, we always start from the state |φ0⟩ that is mapped to the ground state

    Initialize a state from the same set of orthonormal basis as used in the optimization steps |φi⟩, calcu- late the eigenstate U (θ)|φi⟩ and its energy Ei. In practice, we always start from the state |φ0⟩ that is mapped to the ground state

    work page

  5. [5]

    Update the input state by randomly flipping one of its qubits and measuring its energy Ej again

    work page

  6. [6]

    Otherwise, accept it based on a predeter- mined acceptance probability p = e−(Ej −Ei)/T

    If Ej < Ei, accept the new state into the set of states. Otherwise, accept it based on a predeter- mined acceptance probability p = e−(Ej −Ei)/T . If the new state is rejected, the old state is added to the set again. Notice that in the first step, the energy always increases because we start from the ground state. Therefore, this process starts from the ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    In principle, since the unitary operator U is optimized by a random process, states that are not selected in the optimization steps are not guaranteed to be optimized

    Repeat steps 2 and 3 until a predetermined number of states are generated. In principle, since the unitary operator U is optimized by a random process, states that are not selected in the optimization steps are not guaranteed to be optimized. However, as discussed above, the symmetry preserving U helps to extend the set of optimized states. Also, since ei...

    work page

  8. [8]

    R. D. Pisarski and F. Wilczek, Remarks on the Chiral Phase Transition in Chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 29, 338 (1984)

    work page 1984

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Weinberg, The Quantum theory of fields

    S. Weinberg, The Quantum theory of fields. Vol. 1: Foun- dations (Cambridge University Press, 2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    Gell-Mann, R

    M. Gell-Mann, R. J. Oakes, and B. Renner, Behavior of current divergences under SU(3) x SU(3), Phys. Rev. 8 175, 2195 (1968)

    1968

  3. [11]

    Nambu and G

    Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Dynamical Model of El- ementary Particles Based on an Analogy with Supercon- ductivity. 1., Phys. Rev. 122, 345 (1961)

    1961

  4. [12]

    Nambu and G

    Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Dynamical model of el- ementary particles based on an analogy with supercon- ductivity. II., Phys. Rev. 124, 246 (1961)

    1961

  5. [13]

    Goldstone, Field Theories with Superconductor Solu- tions, Nuovo Cim

    J. Goldstone, Field Theories with Superconductor Solu- tions, Nuovo Cim. 19, 154 (1961)

    1961

  6. [14]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, QCD and Resonance Physics. Theoretical Foundations, Nucl. Phys. B 147, 385 (1979)

    1979

  7. [15]

    Weinberg, The U(1) Problem, Phys

    S. Weinberg, The U(1) Problem, Phys. Rev. D 11, 3583 (1975)

    1975

  8. [16]

    H. D. Politzer, Reliable Perturbative Results for Strong Interactions?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1346 (1973)

    1973

  9. [17]

    M. G. Alford, K. Rajagopal, and F. Wilczek, Color fla- vor locking and chiral symmetry breaking in high den- sity QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 537, 443 (1999), arXiv:hep- ph/9804403

    1999

  10. [18]

    R. Rapp, T. Sch¨ afer, E. V. Shuryak, and M. Velkovsky, Diquark Bose condensates in high density matter and instantons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 53 (1998), arXiv:hep- ph/9711396

    1998

  11. [19]

    M. G. Alford, A. Schmitt, K. Rajagopal, and T. Sch¨ afer, Color superconductivity in dense quark matter, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1455 (2008), arXiv:0709.4635 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Rajagopal and F

    K. Rajagopal and F. Wilczek, The Condensed matter physics of QCD, in At the frontier of particle physics. Handbook of QCD. Vol. 1-3 , edited by M. Shifman and B. Ioffe (2000) pp. 2061–2151, arXiv:hep-ph/0011333

    2000 arXiv

  13. [21]

    M. A. Stephanov, K. Rajagopal, and E. V. Shuryak, Sig- natures of the tricritical point in QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4816 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9806219

    1998 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Fukushima and T

    K. Fukushima and T. Hatsuda, The phase diagram of dense QCD, Rept. Prog. Phys. 74, 014001 (2011), arXiv:1005.4814 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  15. [23]

    D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, Ultraviolet Behavior of Nonabelian Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1343 (1973)

    1973

  16. [24]

    Di Meglio et al

    A. Di Meglio et al. , Quantum Computing for High- Energy Physics: State of the Art and Challenges, PRX Quantum 5, 037001 (2024), arXiv:2307.03236 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    K. G. Wilson, Confinement of Quarks, Phys. Rev. D 10, 2445 (1974)

    1974

  18. [26]

    J. B. Kogut, An Introduction to Lattice Gauge Theory and Spin Systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 51, 659 (1979)

    1979

  19. [27]

    Aoki et al

    S. Aoki et al. , Review of lattice results concerning low- energy particle physics, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 112 (2017), arXiv:1607.00299 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Durr et al

    S. Durr et al. (BMW), Ab-Initio Determination of Light Hadron Masses, Science 322, 1224 (2008), arXiv:0906.3599 [hep-lat]

    2008 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Troyer and U.-J

    M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese, Computational complex- ity and fundamental limitations to fermionic quantum Monte Carlo simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 170201 (2005), arXiv:cond-mat/0408370

    2005 arXiv

  22. [30]

    de Forcrand and O

    P. de Forcrand and O. Philipsen, The QCD phase diagram for small densities from imaginary chemical potential, Nucl. Phys. B 642, 290 (2002), arXiv:hep- lat/0205016

    2002

  23. [31]

    C. W. Bauer et al. , Quantum Simulation for High- Energy Physics, PRX Quantum 4, 027001 (2023), arXiv:2204.03381 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Grieninger and I

    S. Grieninger and I. Zahed, Quasi-fragmentation func- tions in the massive Schwinger model, (2024), arXiv:2406.01891 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Zhang, H

    D.-B. Zhang, H. Xing, H. Yan, E. Wang, and S.- L. Zhu, Selected topics of quantum computing for nuclear physics, Chin. Phys. B 30, 020306 (2021), arXiv:2011.01431 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Y. Fang, C. Gao, Y.-Y. Li, J. Shu, Y. Wu, H. Xing, B. Xu, L. Xu, and C. Zhou, Quantum Frontiers in High Energy Physics, (2024), arXiv:2411.11294 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    T. Li, X. Guo, W. K. Lai, X. Liu, E. Wang, H. Xing, D.-B. Zhang, and S.-L. Zhu (QuNu), Partonic collinear structure by quantum computing, Phys. Rev. D 105, L111502 (2022), arXiv:2106.03865 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    T. Li, X. Guo, W. K. Lai, X. Liu, E. Wang, H. Xing, D.-B. Zhang, and S.-L. Zhu (QuNu), Exploring light- cone distribution amplitudes from quantum comput- ing, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 66, 281011 (2023), arXiv:2207.13258 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    T. Li, W. K. Lai, E. Wang, and H. Xing (QuNu), Scattering amplitude from quantum computing with re- duction formula, Phys. Rev. D 109, 036025 (2024), arXiv:2301.04179 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    H. Lamm, S. Lawrence, and Y. Yamauchi (NuQS), Par- ton physics on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013272 (2020), arXiv:1908.10439 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  31. [39]

    T. Li, H. Xing, and D.-B. Zhang, Simulating Par- ton Fragmentation on Quantum Computers, (2024), arXiv:2406.05683 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    J. Y. Araz, R. G. Jha, F. Ringer, and B. Sambasivam, Thermal state preparation of the SYK model using a vari- ational quantum algorithm, (2024), arXiv:2406.15545 9 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    A. M. Czajka, Z.-B. Kang, H. Ma, and F. Zhao, Quan- tum simulation of chiral phase transitions, JHEP08, 209, arXiv:2112.03944 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    W. A. de Jong, K. Lee, J. Mulligan, M. P losko´ n, F. Ringer, and X. Yao, Quantum simulation of nonequilibrium dynamics and thermalization in the Schwinger model, Phys. Rev. D 106, 054508 (2022), arXiv:2106.08394 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    B. Yang, H. Sun, R. Ott, H.-Y. Wang, T. V. Zache, J. C. Halimeh, Z.-S. Yuan, P. Hauke, and J.-W. Pan, Observa- tion of gauge invariance in a 71-site Bose–Hubbard quan- tum simulator, Nature 587, 392 (2020), arXiv:2003.08945 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Zhou, G.-X

    Z.-Y. Zhou, G.-X. Su, J. C. Halimeh, R. Ott, H. Sun, P. Hauke, B. Yang, Z.-S. Yuan, J. Berges, and J.-W. Pan, Thermalization dynamics of a gauge theory on a quantum simulator, Science 377, abl6277 (2022), arXiv:2107.13563 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Kokail et al

    C. Kokail et al. , Self-verifying variational quantum sim- ulation of lattice models, Nature 569, 355 (2019), arXiv:1810.03421 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    X.-D. Xie, X. Guo, H. Xing, Z.-Y. Xue, D.-B. Zhang, and S.-L. Zhu (QuNu), Variational thermal quantum simula- tion of the lattice Schwinger model, Phys. Rev. D 106, 054509 (2022), arXiv:2205.12767 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Davoudi, N

    Z. Davoudi, N. Mueller, and C. Powers, Towards Quan- tum Computing Phase Diagrams of Gauge Theories with Thermal Pure Quantum States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 081901 (2023), arXiv:2208.13112 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A Quan- tum Approximate Optimization Algorithm, (2014), arXiv:1411.4028 [quant-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Ikeda, Z.-B

    K. Ikeda, Z.-B. Kang, D. E. Kharzeev, W. Qian, and F. Zhao, Real-time chiral dynamics at finite tem- perature from quantum simulation, JHEP 10, 031, arXiv:2407.21496 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Motta, C

    M. Motta, C. Sun, A. T. K. Tan, M. J. O. Rourke, E. Ye, A. J. Minnich, F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, and G. K.-L. Chan, Determining eigenstates and thermal states on a quan- tum computer using quantum imaginary time evolution, Nature Phys. 16, 205 (2019), arXiv:1901.07653 [quant- ph]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    J. B. Kogut, The lattice gauge theory approach to quan- tum chromodynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 55, 775 (1983)

    1983

  44. [52]

    G. ’t Hooft, Topological aspects of quantum chromo- dynamics, in International School of Nuclear Physics: 20th Course: Heavy Ion Collisions from Nuclear to Quark Matter (Erice 98) (1998) pp. 216–236, arXiv:hep- th/9812204

    1998

  45. [53]

    Y. Y. Atas, J. Zhang, R. Lewis, A. Jahanpour, J. F. Haase, and C. A. Muschik, SU(2) hadrons on a quantum computer via a variational approach, Nature Commun. 12, 6499 (2021), arXiv:2102.08920 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    V. Ale, N. M. Bauer, R. G. Jha, F. Ringer, and G. Siopsis, Quantum computation of SU(2) lattice gauge theory with continuous variables, (2024), arXiv:2410.14580 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Turro, A

    F. Turro, A. Ciavarella, and X. Yao, Classical and quantum computing of shear viscosity for (2+1)D SU(2) gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D 109, 114511 (2024), arXiv:2402.04221 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    P. Sala, T. Shi, S. K¨ uhn, M. C. Ba˜ nuls, E. Demler, and J. I. Cirac, Variational study of U(1) and SU(2) lattice gauge theories with Gaussian states in 1+1 dimensions, Phys. Rev. D 98, 034505 (2018), arXiv:1805.05190 [hep- lat]

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    J. C. Taylor, Gauge Theories of Weak Interactions , Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cam- bridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1979)

    1979

  50. [58]

    J. B. Kogut and L. Susskind, Hamiltonian Formulation of Wilson’s Lattice Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. D 11, 395 (1975)

    1975

  51. [59]

    Zohar and M

    E. Zohar and M. Burrello, Formulation of lattice gauge theories for quantum simulations, Phys. Rev. D 91, 054506 (2015), arXiv:1409.3085 [quant-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  52. [60]

    D. M. Grabowska, C. F. Kane, and C. W. Bauer, A Fully Gauge-Fixed SU(2) Hamiltonian for Quantum Simula- tions, (2024), arXiv:2409.10610 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    C. J. Hamer, Lattice Model Calculations for SU(2) Yang- Mills Theory in (1+1)-Dimensions, Nucl. Phys. B 121, 159 (1977), [Addendum: Nucl.Phys.B 132, 542 (1978)]

    1977

  54. [62]

    Bringoltz, Volume dependence of two-dimensional large-N QCD with a nonzero density of baryons, Phys

    B. Bringoltz, Volume dependence of two-dimensional large-N QCD with a nonzero density of baryons, Phys. Rev. D 79, 105021 (2009), arXiv:0811.4141 [hep-lat]

    2009 arXiv

  55. [63]

    F. Lenz, H. W. L. Naus, and M. Thies, QCD in the axial gauge representation, Annals Phys. 233, 317 (1994)

    1994

  56. [64]

    LeCun, L

    Y. LeCun, L. Bottou, G. Orr, and K. Muller, Efficient backprop, in Neural Networks , Lecture Notes in Com- puter Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Ar- tificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Springer Verlag, 2012) pp. 9–48, copyright: Copyright ...

    2012

  57. [65]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner, ¨Uber das paulische ¨ aquivalenzverbot, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik47, 631 (1928)

    1928

  58. [66]

    Lowdin, Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Sys- tems

    P.-O. Lowdin, Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Sys- tems. 1. Physical Interpretations by Means of Density Matrices, Natural Spin-Orbitals, and Convergence Prob- lems in the Method of Configurational Interaction, Phys. Rev. 97, 1474 (1955)

    1955

  59. [67]

    Lowdin, Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Sys- tems

    P.-O. Lowdin, Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Sys- tems. 2. Study of the Ordinary Hartree-Fock Approxi- mation, Phys. Rev. 97, 1490 (1955)

    1955

  60. [68]

    Lowdin, Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Sys- tems

    P.-O. Lowdin, Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Sys- tems. 3. Extension of the Hartree-Fock Scheme to Include Degenerate Systems and Correlation Effects, Phys. Rev. 97, 1509 (1955)

    1955

  61. [69]

    N. N. Bogolubov and N. N. Bogolubov, Jr., Introduction to Quantum Statistical Mechanics, 2nd ed. (World Scien- tific Publishing Co., Inc., USA, 2009)

    2009

  62. [70]

    Verdon, J

    G. Verdon, J. Marks, S. Nanda, S. Leichenauer, and J. Hidary, Quantum Hamiltonian-Based Models and the Variational Quantum Thermalizer Algorithm, (2019), arXiv:1910.02071 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Wiersema, C

    R. Wiersema, C. Zhou, Y. de Sereville, J. F. Car- rasquilla, Y. B. Kim, and H. Yuen, Exploring Entangle- ment and Optimization within the Hamiltonian Varia- tional Ansatz, PRX Quantum 1, 020319 (2020)

    2020

  64. [73]

    Weinberg and M

    P. Weinberg and M. Bukov, QuSpin: a Python package for dynamics and exact diagonalisation of quantum many body systems part I: spin chains, SciPost Phys. 2, 003 (2017), arXiv:1610.03042

    2017 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Weinberg and M

    P. Weinberg and M. Bukov, QuSpin: a Python package for dynamics and exact diagonalisation of quantum many body systems. Part II: bosons, fermions and higher spins, SciPost Phys. 7, 020 (2019), arXiv:1804.06782

    2019 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Javadi-Abhari et al., Quantum computing with Qiskit, (2024), arXiv:2405.08810 [quant-ph]

    A. Javadi-Abhari et al., Quantum computing with Qiskit, (2024), arXiv:2405.08810 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Chelabi, Z

    K. Chelabi, Z. Fang, M. Huang, D. Li, and Y.-L. Wu, Realization of chiral symmetry breaking and restoration in holographic QCD, Phys. Rev. D 93, 101901 (2016), arXiv:1511.02721 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Wetterich, Connection between chiral symmetry restoration and deconfinement, Phys

    C. Wetterich, Connection between chiral symmetry restoration and deconfinement, Phys. Rev. D 66, 056003 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0102044

    2002 arXiv

  69. [256]

    decrease

    However, when the system becomes large, the total number of states increases exponentially, while the num- ber of sampled states is expected to increase only by a power law. The above process yields a set of states that effec- tively reflect the thermodynamic properties of the...

Pith tools

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