Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Native Three-Body Interactions in a Superconducting Lattice Gauge Quantum Simulator

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A superconducting circuit with three transmon qubits natively realizes the three-body matter–gauge coupling of a U(1) lattice gauge theory, and its dynamics stay in the two states allowed by Gauss's law.

desk verdict A credible native three-body interaction for U(1) lattice gauge simulators, with a Gauss-law claim that is slightly stronger than the data directly prove. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13383 v1 pith:7XXV6C7Y submitted 2025-01-23 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallhep-lathep-th

J.H. Busnaina , Z. Shi , Jesús M. Alcaine-Cuervo , Cindy X. Yang , I. Nsanzineza , E. Rico , C.M. Wilson This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hallhep-lathep-th
keywords latticegaugetheoryquantumlinkmodelthree-bodyinteractionsuperconductingcircuittransmonqubitGauss'slawparametricdriveelectrodynamics
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 single asymmetric SQUID, driven parametrically at the right frequency, produces a native three-qubit interaction of the form needed for the matter–gauge coupling of a U(1) spin-1/2 lattice gauge theory. In the experiment, two matter sites and one gauge-field link are encoded in three transmon qubits, with the middle qubit made tunable through an asymmetric SQUID. Driving the transition between $|001\rangle$ and $|110\rangle$ creates coherent oscillations between these two states, which are the only states of the three-qubit system that satisfy Gauss's law; the authors report $J/2\pi\hbar$ up to 3 MHz and show that the population in the gauge-invariant subspace stays high while the system oscillates. If correct, this is a hardware-level way to enforce gauge symmetry in analog quantum simulation without decomposing the interaction into two-qubit gates.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the asymmetric SQUID in the tunable transmon, a superconducting loop with two unequal Josephson junctions. Its Hamiltonian contains a sine term proportional to $\delta E_J \sin(\pi\hat{\Phi}_{\rm ext}/\Phi_0)\sin\hat{\phi}_2$, and expanding $\sin\hat{\phi}_2$ to cubic order in the qubit phase operators gives the three-photon coupling. Driving the flux at $\omega_{001\to110}$ makes the term $-J(A_p)(\hat{\sigma}^+_1\hat{\tau}^+_{1,2}\hat{\sigma}^-_2+\text{h.c.})$ time-independent in the rotating frame, with $J(A_p)\propto \delta E_J A_p$ to leading order, while two-body transverse couplings stay off-resonant. This cubic nonlinearity is the specific mechanism that turns one parametric pulse into a gauge-invariant hopping term.

What would settle it

Prepare $|001\rangle$, drive at the measured three-qubit resonance, and monitor the population of a gauge-violating state such as $|010\rangle$ or $|100\rangle$ on a timescale much shorter than the qubit lifetimes. The paper's model predicts no coherent transfer into those states; observing Rabi-frequency oscillations in them would falsify the clean three-body interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central experimental claim is that the device realizes an effective interaction-picture Hamiltonian of the form $$\hat{H}_{\rm int} \approx \frac{\mu(\omega_p)}{2}\sum_{n=1,2}(-1)^n \hat{\$\sigma$}^z_n - J(A_p)\big(\hat{\$\sigma$}^+_1 \hat{\tau}^+_{1,2}\hat{\$\sigma$}^-_2 + \text{h.c.}\big),$$ with $\mu(\omega_p)=-\hbar\delta\omega/2$ set by the pump detuning and $J/2\pi\hbar$ reaching 3 MHz. This is the matter–gauge interaction of a two-site, one-link U(1) spin-1/2 quantum link model: an excitation hops between matter sites while the link spin flips, and the only two states connected are $|001\rangle$ and $|110\rangle$, the two states that satisfy Gauss's law. The experiment prepares $|001\rangle$, applies a parametric flux pulse, and observes Rabi-like oscillations into $|110\rangle$; the reconstructed density matrix shows a coherent off-diagonal element, while the gauge-invariant population and the symmetry-generator expectation values remain nearly constant on the oscillation timescale. The measured resonance shift requires a Bloch–Siegert correction beyond first-order perturbation theory, and the authors match analytics, numerical simulation, and data with that correction included.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the microwave drive tuned to the three-qubit transition generates the intended three-body coupling while every other two-body or higher-order process stays far enough off resonance that the system remains in the two-state sector allowed by Gauss's law; the paper's own need for a Bloch–Siegert correction shows that such higher-order effects are not completely negligible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same building block can be chained: Appendix C gives the mapping of a seven-transmon chain to a four-site lattice gauge theory and shows that pump detunings independently set the effective fermion mass terms.
  • Because the three-body coupling acts continuously rather than through a sequence of two-qubit gates, it removes the gate-decomposition overhead that digital approaches pay for gauge invariance.
  • With $J/2\pi\hbar\approx 3$ MHz and measured coherence times in the microsecond range, the coupling is strong enough to observe several coherent oscillations, which the authors argue is sufficient to see string breaking in one-dimensional lattice gauge theories.
  • Replacing the gauge qubit with an oscillator would extend the same coupling to gauge fields with larger Hilbert spaces, as the paper states.
  • The demonstrated interaction also serves as the building block for 1D and, with frequency multiplexing and flip-chip packaging, eventually 2D arrays of gauge-invariant matter–gauge dynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One implication the authors leave implicit is that the same parametric mechanism should work for other discrete gauge groups: the three-body term is selected by frequency rather than by the particular U(1) encoding, so a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ or higher-$S$ link should be reachable with the same SQUID nonlinearity and a different resonance condition.
  • The need for a Bloch–Siegert correction suggests a practical calibration route: measuring the amplitude-dependent resonance shift of the three-body transition could serve as an in-situ probe of the SQUID's cubic nonlinearity, without separate spectroscopy of higher levels.
  • The authors simulate false-vacuum decay classically; a direct extension would be to initialize a small chain in a false vacuum and observe the gauge-invariant drift toward the true vacuum in the same hardware, which would test whether the native coupling stays clean at the larger drive amplitudes such an experiment would require.
  • If off-resonant two-body terms become visible at higher $A_p$, the clean rotating-wave picture degrades; a systematic scan of leakage versus drive amplitude would map the useful parameter window for scalable arrays.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes and implements a parametrically activated three-qubit interaction in a three-transmon superconducting circuit, with the central qubit being an asymmetric SQUID. The authors map the device to a two-site, one-link U(1) spin-1/2 lattice gauge theory and claim that driving at the |001>→|110> transition frequency produces an effective Hamiltonian whose only resonant coupling is the three-body matter-gauge interaction -J(σ+_1 τ+_12 σ-_2 + h.c.), so that the evolution intrinsically satisfies Gauss's law. They report coherent Rabi oscillations between |001> and |110>, interaction strengths up to J/2πℏ = 3 MHz, a Bloch-Siegert-corrected resonance shift, and a five-state cavity-Bloch analysis of the populations that shows the system predominantly staying in the gauge-invariant subspace. The paper also includes classical numerical simulations of false-vacuum decay in a 12-site version of the model.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper describes a significant hardware advance: a native, single-pulse three-body interaction suitable as a building block for analog quantum simulation of dynamical gauge fields, with a concrete two-site demonstration of Gauss-law-preserving dynamics. The raw observation of coherent Rabi oscillations between |001> and |110> with a strong off-diagonal density-matrix element is a solid experimental result that does not depend on the model fit. The second-order perturbative treatment and brute-force numerical comparison are also valuable. However, the quantitative validation is partially circular, and the gauge-invariance claim lacks a direct bound on population in the unmeasured gauge-violating two-excitation states; these issues are load-bearing for the paper's headline conclusions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Table I and Fig. 3(c)] The quantitative agreement shown in Fig. 3(c) is not an independent test of the model. Table I states that the charging energies E_C and couplings g_nm were extracted by fitting the circuit model to all of the following: the flux dependence of ω_n (Fig. 2(c)), the two-photon energy levels (Table II), and the three-qubit interaction strength and resonance frequency as functions of A_p (Fig. 3(c)). Since the same J(A_p) and ω_3q(A_p) data are used to determine the model parameters and then plotted against the resulting theory curves, the agreement in Fig. 3(c) is partly guaranteed by construction. The existence of the three-body interaction is supported by the raw chevron data, but the quantitative claims (J up to 3 MHz and the validity of the second-order Bloch-Siegert formula) would be substantially strengthened if the model were refit using only the spectroscopy data and then used to predict J(A_p) and ω_3q(A_p) out of sample.
  2. [Sec. II, Eq. (6); Appendix B3; Appendix E] The derivation of the gauge-invariant Hamiltonian Eq. (6) drops all terms in the expansion Eq. (B11) except the resonant three-body term, yet the paper's own analysis shows that higher-order (second-order in A_p) Bloch-Siegert processes are large enough to shift ω_3q substantially (Eq. (B16) and Fig. 3(c)). The experiment monitors only the five states |001>, |110>, |100>, |010>, and |000> in the cavity-Bloch fit (Appendix E); the gauge-violating two-excitation states |011> and |101> are not measured, and no resonant search for transitions out of the |001>,|110> manifold is reported. Consequently, the claim that the evolution 'intrinsically satisfies Gauss's law' is not directly supported: the data are consistent with leakage into unmonitored gauge-violating states as long as it is below the readout sensitivity. Please provide either a direct measurement of P_|011> and P_|101> during the evolution, a resonant spectroscopy search near the expected gauge-violating transitions, or a quantitative bound derived from Eq. (B11) showing that the amplitudes of all gauge-violating resonant terms are negligible at the operating A_p.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3(c) caption] Please specify in the legend which curve is first-order perturbation theory, which is second-order, and which is the brute-force numerical calculation; the current caption relies on colors that are not sufficiently distinguishable in the preprint.
  2. [Eq. (2) and Fig. 5] The symmetry generator in Eq. (2) as written does not give zero on the state |001> for the two-site open-boundary chain; one must remove the staggered background terms as described in the Fig. 5 caption. Please state this convention explicitly immediately after Eq. (2) to avoid confusion.
  3. [Appendix B3, Eq. (B16)] There appears to be a typographical issue in Eq. (B16): an unmatched 'h' symbol appears before the first fraction, and the parentheses in the denominators should be checked for consistency.
  4. [Fig. 4 and Appendix E] The absolute populations in Fig. 4(b) are extracted from fits to the cavity-Bloch equations; reporting a readout fidelity or assignment-error estimate for the five states would help the reader judge the accuracy of the quoted populations and the off-diagonal density-matrix element.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Central three-body Rabi observation is direct and not circular; one theory-vs-data comparison in Fig. 3(c) uses circuit parameters fitted to the same J(Ap) and omega_3q(Ap) data it claims to reproduce.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Table I and Fig. 3(c), Sections III-IV]
    "To extract EC and gnm, we fit the three-qubit circuit model to all of the following measured data: the omega_n as functions of the DC flux bias Phi_b (Fig. 2(c)); two-photon energy levels at Phi_b=0 (Table II); and the three-qubit interaction strength and resonance frequency at Phi_b=0 as functions of the parametric drive strength, Ap (see Fig. 3(c)). ... With that, we were able to obtain quantitative agreement, as shown in Fig. 3(c), between the analytical results, experimental measurements, and brute-force numerical calculations."

    The circuit parameters EC and gnm used to compute the perturbation-theory and brute-force curves in Fig. 3(c) are extracted by fitting, among other data, the measured three-qubit interaction strength J(Ap) and resonance frequency omega_3q(Ap). The same J(Ap) and omega_3q(Ap) data are then plotted against those computed curves and presented as quantitative agreement. The agreement is therefore a consistency check that regenerates the fitted outputs rather than an independent prediction of the three-body interaction strength. This circularity is confined to the characterization panel: the observed Rabi chevrons and coherent population transfer between |001> and |110> remain direct experimental evidence for the resonant three-body term.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, coherent oscillations between the gauge-invariant states |001> and |110> under a single parametric drive, is supported by direct measurements (Rabi chevrons, raw resonator responses, and the reconstructed off-diagonal density-matrix element) and does not reduce to the fitted circuit parameters. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is used: the three-body term is derived from the circuit Hamiltonian, and prior work by the same group is cited only as background. The main circular element is the Fig. 3(c) validation: Table I openly states that EC and gnm were fitted using the same J and omega_3q versus Ap data that Fig. 3(c) then compares with theory, so the quoted 'quantitative agreement' is partly a fitted-input check rather than an independent prediction. A separate evidentiary gap, not itself a circular step, is that the Gauss-law indicators in Fig. 5 are extracted using the cavity-Bloch model of Appendix E, whose coherent subspace is assumed to be {|001>,|110>}; the experiment does not directly bound population in the gauge-violating states |011> or |101>. Overall, the central observation is independent and self-contained, while the fitted-input comparison in the characterization panel warrants a moderate circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard circuit-QED modeling assumptions (two-level qubits, classical drive, RWA), standard lattice gauge theory mappings, and a set of device parameters and dissipative rates that are fit to experimental data. No new physical entities are introduced. The main burden is that the theory-data agreement in Fig. 3(c) uses parameters fit to the same target quantities, and the gauge-invariance statement depends on the RWA suppression of all non-resonant terms.

free parameters (3)
  • Circuit parameters (EC, gnm, omega_n) = Table I: omega_1/2pi = 5.7279 GHz, omega_2/2pi = 5.9098 GHz, omega_3/2pi = 5.0538 GHz; EC/hbar/2pi = 183, 165, 184…
    Used to compute theoretical J(Ap) and omega_3q(Ap) curves in Fig. 3(c); importantly, they were fit using the J and omega_3q data themselves, so the agreement is partially circular.
  • Dissipative rates in cavity-Bloch fit = 1/gamma_110->010 = 6.6 +/- 1.5 us, 1/gamma_110->100 = 1.561 +/- 0.092 us, 1/gamma_001->000 = 1.28 +/- 0.33 us, plus…
    Free parameters in the readout model used to extract populations and density matrix elements in Fig. 4.
  • Readout scale factors and thermal populations = Not tabulated
    Populations P_001 and P_110 are obtained by rescaling readout signals using scale factors extracted from the same cavity-Bloch fit (footnote 56), so these are fitted, not directly measured, quantities.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Each transmon is treated as a two-level system (qubit) in the effective Hamiltonian, ignoring higher transmon levels except through perturbative shifts.
    Used in Eq. (3) and the five-state readout model in Appendix E; higher levels are common in transmon devices and their neglect is standard but not exact.
  • domain assumption The external flux drive is treated as a classical single-tone coherent field, alpha_p(t) = A_p cos(omega_p t + phi), and the parametric approximation is applied.
    Used in Sec. II and Appendix B1 to replace the operator flux by a classical signal; standard in parametric circuit QED.
  • standard math Rotating-wave approximation discards all non-resonant terms, leaving only the three-body term -J sigma+_1 sigma+_2 sigma-_3 + h.c. in the interaction picture.
    Used in Sec. II, Eqs. (5)-(6) and Appendix B2. The approximation is standard, but it is the load-bearing assumption that the engineered evolution is purely gauge invariant; the paper shows first-order perturbation theory is insufficient for the resonance shift, indicating non-negligible higher-order corrections.
  • domain assumption Transverse capacitive couplings between qubits are negligible unless activated by the parametric pump, so the idle Hamiltonian contains only ZZ terms.
    Stated in Sec. II around Eq. (3); residual always-on transverse couplings would introduce gauge-violating two-body dynamics.
  • standard math The Jordan-Wigner transformation maps the 1D fermionic matter to spin-1/2 sites, and the quantum link model represents the gauge field as a spin-1/2 Pauli operator.
    Used in Sec. II, Eqs. (1)-(2); standard mapping in the lattice gauge theory literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Native Three-Body Interactions in a Superconducting Lattice Gauge Quantum Simulator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7XXV6C7Y

@misc{pith2026250113383,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Native Three-Body Interactions in a Superconducting Lattice Gauge Quantum Simulator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7XXV6C7Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13383}
}
abstract

While universal quantum computers remain under development, analog quantum simulators offer a powerful alternative for understanding complex systems in condensed matter, chemistry, and high-energy physics. One compelling application is the characterization of real-time lattice gauge theories (LGTs). LGTs are nonperturbative tools, utilizing discretized spacetime to describe gauge-invariant models. They hold immense potential for understanding fundamental physics but require enforcing local constraints analogous to electromagnetism's Gauss's Law. These constraints, which arise from gauge symmetries and dictate the form of the interaction between matter and gauge fields, are a significant challenge for simulators to enforce. Implementing these constraints at the hardware level in analog simulations is crucial. This requires realizing multibody interactions between matter and gauge-field elements, enabling them to evolve together while suppressing unwanted two-body interactions that violate the gauge symmetry. In this paper, we propose and implement a novel parametrically activated three-qubit interaction within a circuit quantum electrodynamics architecture. We experimentally demonstrate a minimal $U(1)$ spin-1/2 model with a time evolution that intrinsically satisfies Gauss's law in the system. This design serves as the foundational block for simulating LGTs on a superconducting photonic lattice.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13383 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Building block for the analog quantum simulation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The three-qubit device. (a) Micrograph of the de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Characterizing the three-body interaction. (a) Validation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Evolution of site spins and gauge-invariant quantities. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Recovering the symmetry-preserving true vacuum configuration with a gauge-invariant time evolution from a false [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Illustration of the experimental setup. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The 7-transmon chain with open boundary conditions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Appendix F: Charge and Parity Symmetries of the gauge invariant model and real-time evolution of a string Apart from local gauge invariance, [Hˆm, Gˆ n] = 0 for all sites n, where Eq. (1) gives the Hamiltonian of the model and Eq. (2) the local gauge generators respect…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Effects of an increasing site energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.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 SAT Problems with Finite Sets of Projectors are Complete for a Plethora of Classes

    quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    New QSAT variants on qubits and qudits are complete for BQP_1, coRP, QCMA and six PI/SoPU classes, implying any classification of strong quantum CSPs must contain at least 13 classes unless some collapse.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The wiring setup, shown in Fig

    F ridge Setup The device is cooled using a Bluefors dilution refrig- erator that can reach a temperature of approximately 7 mK. The wiring setup, shown in Fig. 7, includes three mi- crowave lines with 50 Ω SMA cables for input, control, and output signals, as well as a DC line terminated by a coil for external flux bias. Then, the fridge input line is hea...

  2. [2]

    The pulse wave is synthesized digitally at an IF frequency fIF = 150 MHz with a sampling rate of 1.2 Gsps

    Measurement Setup We use a PXDAC4800 digital-to-analog conversion (DAC) board to generate the qubit control pulses. The pulse wave is synthesized digitally at an IF frequency fIF = 150 MHz with a sampling rate of 1.2 Gsps. We im- plement single-side-band mixing using Marki IQ mixers (MLIQ-0218) and a Rhode & Schwarz SGS continuous- wave (CW) source as an ...

  3. [3]

    Model The three pairwise capacitively coupled transmon qubits in our device are described by the Hamiltonian ˆH = X jk 4EC,jk ˆNj ˆNk − EJ,1 cos ˆϕ1 − EJ,3 cos ˆϕ3 + ˆHsq. (B1) Here EC,jj and EJ,j are the charging and Josephson en- ergies of the jth transmon qubit, EJ,j ≫ EC,jj , and the operators ˆNj and ˆϕj are the Cooper pair number and su- perconducti...

  4. [4]

    We first expand the cosine terms in ˆH0 to the quartic order and rewrite ˆH0 in terms of creation and annihilation operators

    Three-qubit interaction We now demonstrate analytically how to activate the three-qubit interaction. We first expand the cosine terms in ˆH0 to the quartic order and rewrite ˆH0 in terms of creation and annihilation operators. In the rotating wave approximation, discarding all terms that do not conserve the number of excitations, we have ˆH0 ≈ X j [ℏω0,jˆ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    (B4) and (B5) without assuming weak anharmonic- ity and the rotating wave approximation

    Rabi oscillations and perturbation theory In our numerical simulations of the spectrum and the dynamics of the system, we employ the scQubits [74, 75] and QuTiP [76] libraries, working with the Hamiltonians Eqs. (B4) and (B5) without assuming weak anharmonic- ity and the rotating wave approximation. We find the spectrum {ϵl} of the coupled transmon system...

    work page

  6. [6]

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

    1974

  7. [7]

    J. B. Kogut, An introduction to lattice gauge theory and spin systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 51, 659 (1979)

    1979

  8. [8]

    Wiese, Ultracold quantum gases and lattice sys- tems: quantum simulation of lattice gauge theories, Ann

    U.-J. Wiese, Ultracold quantum gases and lattice sys- tems: quantum simulation of lattice gauge theories, Ann. Phys. 525, 777 (2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    Fradkin, Field theories of condensed matter physics (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    E. Fradkin, Field theories of condensed matter physics (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    Balents, Spin liquids in frustrated magnets, Nature 464, 199 (2010)

    L. Balents, Spin liquids in frustrated magnets, Nature 464, 199 (2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Quantum spin liquids: a re- view, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 016502 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Wen, Quantum field theory of many-body systems: from the origin of sound to an origin of light and electrons (OUP Oxford, 2004)

    X.-G. Wen, Quantum field theory of many-body systems: from the origin of sound to an origin of light and electrons (OUP Oxford, 2004)

    2004

  5. [13]

    Prosko, S.-P

    C. Prosko, S.-P. Lee, and J. Maciejko, Simple Z2 lattice gauge theories at finite fermion density, Phys. Rev. B 96, 205104 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Fodor and C

    Z. Fodor and C. Hoelbling, Light hadron masses from lattice QCD, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 449 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    Detmold, R

    USQCD collaboration, W. Detmold, R. G. Edwards, J. J. Dudek, M. Engelhardt, H.-W. Lin, S. Meinel, K. Orginos, and P. Shanahan, Hadrons and nuclei, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 193 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    DeTar and U

    C. DeTar and U. Heller, QCD thermodynamics from the lattice, Eur. Phys. J. A 41, 405 (2009)

    2009

  9. [17]

    Fukushima and T

    K. Fukushima and T. Hatsuda, The phase diagram of dense QCD, Rep. Prog. Phys. 74, 014001 (2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

    Philipsen, Constraining the QCD phase diagram at finite temperature and density, arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.04827 (2019)

    O. Philipsen, Constraining the QCD phase diagram at finite temperature and density, arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.04827 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Borsanyi, Z

    S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, J. Guenther, C. Hoelbling, S. Katz, L. Lellouch, T. Lippert, K. Miura, L. Parato, K. Szabo, et al. , Leading hadronic contribution to the muon mag- netic moment from lattice QCD, Nature 593, 51 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Creutz, L

    M. Creutz, L. Jacobs, and C. Rebbi, Monte carlo com- putations in lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rep. 95, 201 (1983)

    1983

  13. [21]

    Gattringer and C

    C. Gattringer and C. Lang, Quantum chromodynamics on the lattice: an introductory presentation , Vol. 788 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2009)

    2009

  14. [22]

    E. A. Calzetta and B.-L. B. Hu, Nonequilibrium quantum field theory (Cambridge University Press, 2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    Dasgupta and I

    R. Dasgupta and I. Raychowdhury, Cold-atom quantum simulator for string and hadron dynamics in non-abelian lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. A 105, 023322 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Troyer and U.-J

    M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese, Computational complexity and fundamental limitations to fermionic quantum monte carlo simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 170201 (2005)

    2005

  17. [25]

    de Forcrand, Simulating QCD at finite density, in The XXVII International Symposium on Lattice Field The- ory, Vol

    P. de Forcrand, Simulating QCD at finite density, in The XXVII International Symposium on Lattice Field The- ory, Vol. 91 (SISSA Medialab, 2010) p. 010

    2010

  18. [26]

    M. C. Banuls, R. Blatt, J. Catani, A. Celi, J. I. Cirac, M. Dalmonte, L. Fallani, K. Jansen, M. Lewenstein, S. Montangero, et al. , Simulating lattice gauge theo- ries within quantum technologies, Eur. Phys. J. D 74, 1 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Davoudi, M

    Z. Davoudi, M. Hafezi, C. Monroe, G. Pagano, A. Seif, and A. Shaw, Towards analog quantum simulations of lattice gauge theories with trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023015 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    N. Klco, M. J. Savage, and J. R. Stryker, SU(2) non- abelian gauge field theory in one dimension on digital quantum computers, Phys. Rev. D 101, 074512 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Davoudi, N

    Z. Davoudi, N. M. Linke, and G. Pagano, Toward simu- lating quantum field theories with controlled phonon-ion dynamics: A hybrid analog-digital approach, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 043072 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Mildenberger, W

    J. Mildenberger, W. Mruczkiewicz, J. C. Halimeh, Z. Jiang, and P. Hauke, Probing confinement in a Z2 lat- tice gauge theory on a quantum computer, arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.08905 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    E. A. Martinez, C. A. Muschik, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, A. Erhard, M. Heyl, P. Hauke, M. Dalmonte, T. Monz, P. Zoller, et al., Real-time dynamics of lattice gauge the- ories with a few-qubit quantum computer, Nature 534, 516 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Kokail, C

    C. Kokail, C. Maier, R. van Bijnen, T. Brydges, M. K. Joshi, P. Jurcevic, C. A. Muschik, P. Silvi, R. Blatt, C. F. Roos, et al. , Self-verifying variational quantum simula- tion of lattice models, Nature 569, 355 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    N. H. Nguyen, M. C. Tran, Y. Zhu, A. M. Green, C. H. Alderete, Z. Davoudi, and N. M. Linke, Digital quantum simulation of the schwinger model and symmetry protec- tion with trapped ions, PRX Quantum 3, 020324 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Quantum simulation of fundamental particles and forces, Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 420 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    A. N. Ciavarella, S. Caspar, H. Singh, and M. J. Sav- age, Preparation for quantum simulation of the (1 + 1)- dimensional O(3) nonlinear σ model using cold atoms, Phys. Rev. A 107, 042404 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    S. A. Wilkinson and M. J. Hartmann, Superconducting quantum many-body circuits for quantum simulation and computing, Appl. Phys. Lett. 116, 230501 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    R. B. Jensen, S. P. Pedersen, and N. T. Zinner, Dynam- ical quantum phase transitions in a noisy lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. B 105, 224309 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Homeier, A

    L. Homeier, A. Bohrdt, S. Linsel, E. Demler, J. C. Hal- imeh, and F. Grusdt, Realistic scheme for quantum simu- lation of Z2 lattice gauge theories with dynamical matter in (2+ 1) d, Commun. Phys. 6, 127 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    J. S. Hung, J. Busnaina, C. S. Chang, A. Vadiraj, I. Nsanzineza, E. Solano, H. Alaeian, E. Rico, and C. Wil- son, Quantum simulation of the bosonic creutz ladder with a parametric cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 100503 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    J. H. Busnaina, Z. Shi, A. McDonald, D. Dubyna, I. Nsanzineza, J. S. Hung, C. S. Chang, A. A. Clerk, and C. M. Wilson, Quantum simulation of the bosonic Kitaev chain, Nat. Commun. 15, 3065 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Simoen, C

    M. Simoen, C. W. S. Chang, P. Krantz, J. Bylander, W. Wustmann, V. Shumeiko, P. Delsing, and C. M. Wil- son, Characterization of a multimode coplanar waveguide parametric amplifier, J. Appl. Phys. 118, 154501 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    C. W. Sandbo Chang, M. Simoen, J. Aumentado, C. Sab ´ ın, P. Forn-D ´ ıaz, A. M. Vadiraj, F. Quijandr ´ ıa, G. Johansson, I. Fuentes, and C. M. Wilson, Generating multimode entangled microwaves with a superconducting parametric cavity, Phys. Rev. Appl. 10, 044019 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Alaeian, C

    H. Alaeian, C. W. S. Chang, M. V. Moghaddam, C. M. 19 Wilson, E. Solano, and E. Rico, Creating lattice gauge potentials in circuit QED: The bosonic Creutz ladder, Phys. Rev. A 99, 053834 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    C. W. S. Chang, C. Sab ´ ın, P. Forn-D ´ ıaz, F. Quijandr ´ ıa, A. M. Vadiraj, I. Nsanzineza, G. Johansson, and C. M. Wilson, Observation of three-photon spontaneous para- metric down-conversion in a superconducting parametric cavity, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011011 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Smith, J

    A. Smith, J. Knolle, R. Moessner, and D. L. Kovrizhin, Dynamical localization in Z2 lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. B 97, 245137 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    A. Celi, B. Vermersch, O. Viyuela, H. Pichler, M. D. Lukin, and P. Zoller, Emerging two-dimensional gauge theories in rydberg configurable arrays, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021057 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Hermele, M

    M. Hermele, M. P. A. Fisher, and L. Balents, Pyrochlore photons: The U(1) spin liquid in a S = 1 2 three- dimensional frustrated magnet, Phys. Rev. B 69, 064404 (2004)

    2004

  40. [48]

    T. J. Stavenger, E. Crane, K. C. Smith, C. T. Kang, S. M. Girvin, and N. Wiebe, C2qa-bosonic qiskit, in 2022 IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference (HPEC) (IEEE, 2022) pp. 1–8

    2022

  41. [49]

    Y. Liu, S. Singh, K. C. Smith, E. Crane, J. M. Mar- tyn, A. Eickbusch, A. Schuckert, R. D. Li, J. Sinanan- Singh, M. B. Soley, et al. , Hybrid oscillator-qubit quantum processors: Instruction set architectures, ab- stract machine models, and applications, arXiv preprint arXiv:...

    2024

  42. [50]

    Crane, K

    E. Crane, K. C. Smith, T. Tomesh, A. Eickbusch, J. M. Martyn, S. K¨ uhn, L. Funcke, M. A. DeMarco, I. L. Chuang, N. Wiebe, et al. , Hybrid oscillator-qubit quan- tum processors: Simulating fermions, bosons, and gauge fields, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03747 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Banerjee, M

    D. Banerjee, M. B¨ ogli, M. Dalmonte, E. Rico, P. Stebler, U.-J. Wiese, and P. Zoller, Atomic quantum simulation of U(n) and SU(n) non-abelian lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 125303 (2013)

    2013

  44. [52]

    Marcos, P

    D. Marcos, P. Rabl, E. Rico, and P. Zoller, Superconduct- ing circuits for quantum simulation of dynamical gauge fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 110504 (2013)

    2013

  45. [53]

    Kogut and L

    J. Kogut and L. Susskind, Hamiltonian formulation of wilson’s lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D 11, 395 (1975)

    1975

  46. [54]

    Banerjee, M

    D. Banerjee, M. Dalmonte, M. M¨ uller, E. Rico, P. Ste- bler, U.-J. Wiese, and P. Zoller, Atomic quantum simula- tion of dynamical gauge fields coupled to fermionic mat- ter: From string breaking to evolution after a quench, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 175302 (2012)

    2012

  47. [55]

    D. Yang, G. S. Giri, M. Johanning, C. Wunderlich, P. Zoller, and P. Hauke, Analog quantum simulation of (1+ 1)-dimensional lattice QED with trapped ions, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052321 (2016)

    2016

  48. [56]

    Lescanne, M

    R. Lescanne, M. Villiers, T. Peronnin, A. Sarlette, M. Delbecq, B. Huard, T. Kontos, M. Mirrahimi, and Z. Leghtas, Exponential suppression of bit-flips in a qubit encoded in an oscillator, Nat. Phys. 16, 509 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    Reagor, C

    M. Reagor, C. B. Osborn, N. Tezak, A. Staley, G. Prawiroatmodjo, M. Scheer, N. Alidoust, E. A. Sete, N. Didier, M. P. da Silva,et al., Demonstration of univer- sal parametric entangling gates on a multi-qubit lattice, Sci. Adv. 4, eaao3603 (2018)

    2018

  50. [58]

    T. Noh, Z. Xiao, X. Jin, K. Cicak, E. Doucet, J. Au- mentado, L. C. Govia, L. Ranzani, A. Kamal, and R. W. Simmonds, Strong parametric dispersive shifts in a stati- cally decoupled two-qubit cavity QED system, Nat. Phys. 19, 1445 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    J. Yang, A. M. Eriksson, M. A. Aamir, I. Strandberg, C. Castillo-Moreno, D. P. Lozano, P. Persson, and S. Gas- parinetti, Deterministic generation of shaped single mi- crowave photons using a parametrically driven coupler, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 054018 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    Bianchetti, S

    R. Bianchetti, S. Filipp, M. Baur, J. Fink, M. G¨ oppl, P. J. Leek, L. Steffen, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Dynam- ics of dispersive single-qubit readout in circuit quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. A 80, 043840 (2009)

    2009

  53. [61]

    Note that rescaling the readout signals at the ground- state resonator frequency yields P|001⟩ + P|000⟩, and we need to further subtract the fit values of P|000⟩ to obtain P|001⟩

  54. [62]

    Menke, W

    T. Menke, W. P. Banner, T. R. Bergamaschi, A. Di Paolo, A. Veps¨ al¨ ainen, S. J. Weber, R. Winik, A. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, D. Rosenberg, K. Serniak, M. E. Schwartz, J. L. Yoder, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. Gus- tavsson, J. A. Grover, C. F. Hirjibehedin, A. J. Kerman, and W. D....

    2022

  55. [63]

    W. Liu, W. Feng, W. Ren, D.-W. Wang, and H. Wang, Synthesizing three-body interaction of spin chirality with superconducting qubits, Appl. Phys. Lett. 116, 114001 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    O. Katz, L. Feng, A. Risinger, C. Monroe, and M. Cetina, Demonstration of three-and four-body interactions be- tween trapped-ion spins, Nat. Phys. 19, 1452 (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    Y. Kim, A. Morvan, L. B. Nguyen, R. K. Naik, C. J¨ unger, L. Chen, J. M. Kreikebaum, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, High-fidelity three-qubit i toffoli gate for fixed-frequency superconducting qubits, Nat. Phys. 18, 783 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    C. W. Warren, J. Fern´ andez-Pend´ as, S. Ahmed, T. Abad, A. Bengtsson, J. Bizn´ arov´ a, K. Debnath, X. Gu, C. Kriˇ zan, A. Osman,et al. , Extensive characterization and implementation of a family of three-qubit gates at the coherence limit, npj Quantum Inf. 9, 44 (2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    Itoko, M

    T. Itoko, M. Malekakhlagh, N. Kanazawa, and M. Takita, Three-qubit parity gate via simultaneous cross-resonance drives, Phys. Rev. Appl. 21, 034018 (2024)

    2024

  60. [68]

    T. Roy, S. Hazra, S. Kundu, M. Chand, M. P. Patankar, and R. Vijay, Programmable superconducting proces- sor with native three-qubit gates, Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 014072 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    Fedorov, L

    A. Fedorov, L. Steffen, M. Baur, M. P. da Silva, and A. Wallraff, Implementation of a toffoli gate with super- conducting circuits, Nature 481, 170 (2012)

    2012

  62. [70]

    M. D. Reed, L. DiCarlo, S. E. Nigg, L. Sun, L. Frun- zio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Realization of three-qubit quantum error correction with superconduct- ing circuits, Nature 482, 382 (2012)

    2012

  63. [71]

    P. Song, Z. Xiang, Y.-X. Zhang, Z. Wang, X. Guo, X. Ruan, X. Song, K. Xu, Y. Y. Gao, H. Fan, et al. , Coherent control of bloch oscillations in a superconduct- ing circuit, PRX Quantum 5, 020302 (2024)

    2024

  64. [72]

    Rosenberg, D

    D. Rosenberg, D. Kim, R. Das, D. Yost, S. Gustavsson, D. Hover, P. Krantz, A. Melville, L. Racz, G. Samach, et al. , 3d integrated superconducting qubits, npj Quan- tum Inf. 3, 42 (2017)

    2017

  65. [73]

    Kosen, H.-X

    S. Kosen, H.-X. Li, M. Rommel, D. Shiri, C. Warren, L. Gr¨ onberg, J. Salonen, T. Abad, J. Bizn´ arov´ a, M. Ca- 20 puto, et al. , Building blocks of a flip-chip integrated su- perconducting quantum processor, Quantum Sci. Tech- nol. 7, 035018 (2022)

    2022

  66. [74]

    Bizn´ arov´ a, A

    J. Bizn´ arov´ a, A. Osman, E. Rehnman, L. Chayanun, C. Kriˇ zan, P. Malmberg, M. Rommel, C. Warren, P. Dels- ing, A. Yurgens, et al., Mitigation of interfacial dielectric loss in aluminum-on-silicon superconducting qubits, npj Quantum Inf. 10, 78 (2024)

    2024

  67. [75]

    A. P. Place, L. V. Rodgers, P. Mundada, B. M. Smitham, M. Fitzpatrick, Z. Leng, A. Premkumar, J. Bryon, A. Vrajitoarea, S. Sussman, et al. , New material plat- form for superconducting transmon qubits with coher- ence times exceeding 0.3 milliseconds, Nat. Commun. 12, 1779 (2021)

    2021

  68. [76]

    A. H. Karamlou, I. T. Rosen, S. E. Muschinske, C. N. Barrett, A. Di Paolo, L. Ding, P. M. Harrington, M. Hays, R. Das, D. K. Kim,et al., Probing entanglement in a 2d hard-core bose–hubbard lattice, Nature 629, 561 (2024)

    2024

  69. [77]

    Zhang, H

    P. Zhang, H. Dong, Y. Gao, L. Zhao, J. Hao, J.-Y. De- saules, Q. Guo, J. Chen, J. Deng, B. Liu, et al. , Many- body hilbert space scarring on a superconducting proces- sor, Nat. Phys. 19, 120 (2023)

    2023

  70. [78]

    A. H. Karamlou, J. Braum¨ uller, Y. Yanay, A. Di Paolo, P. M. Harrington, B. Kannan, D. Kim, M. Kjaergaard, A. Melville, S. Muschinske, et al. , Quantum transport and localization in 1d and 2d tight-binding lattices, npj Quantum Inf. 8, 35 (2022)

    2022

  71. [79]

    Groszkowski and J

    P. Groszkowski and J. Koch, Scqubits: a Python package for superconducting qubits, Quantum 5, 583 (2021)

    2021

  72. [80]

    S. P. Chitta, T. Zhao, Z. Huang, I. Mondragon-Shem, and J. Koch, Computer-aided quantization and numer- ical analysis of superconducting circuits, New J. Phys. 24, 103020 (2022)

    2022

  73. [81]

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, Qutip: An open-source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1760 (2012)

    2012

  74. [82]

    J. H. Shirley, Solution of the schr¨ odinger equation with a hamiltonian periodic in time, Phys. Rev. 138, B979 (1965)

    1965

  75. [83]

    J. Gao, M. Daal, A. Vayonakis, S. Kumar, J. Zmuidzinas, B. Sadoulet, B. A. Mazin, P. K. Day, and H. G. Leduc, Experimental evidence for a surface distribution of two- level systems in superconducting lithographed microwave resonators, Appl. Phys. Lett. 92 (2008)

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.