Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Universal framework with exponential speedup for the quantum simulation of quantum field theories including QCD

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper presents explicit, oracle-free quantum circuits that simulate QCD and other quantum field theories with per-Trotter-step gate counts scaling only as the spatial volume, for any gauge group and matter content.

desk verdict A genuinely useful fermionic extension with explicit O(L^d) Trotter circuits for QCD, but the end-to-end exponential speedup claim is not yet supported because the truncation cost is left unbounded. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18966 v1 pith:H5ZWCQ4D submitted 2025-06-23 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gashep-lathep-phhep-th

Jad C. Halimeh , Masanori Hanada , Shunji Matsuura This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gashep-lathep-phhep-th
keywords quantumsimulationlatticegaugetheoryQCDorbifoldTrotterizationJordan-WignertransformVerstraete-Ciracblockencoding
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

This paper presents a general recipe for simulating quantum field theories, including quantum chromodynamics in $3+1$ dimensions, on a quantum computer without oracles. It extends an earlier bosonic simulation protocol to theories with fermionic matter by combining the orbifold lattice formulation with the Jordan–Wigner transform or the Verstraete–Cirac transform. For a theory on an $L^d$ spatial lattice, one Trotter step of Hamiltonian time evolution is realized with $O(L^d)$ CNOT gates, Hadamard gates, phase gates, and one-qubit rotations, for any $\mathrm{SU}(N)$ gauge group and any matter content. This means the cost of one step grows only with the spatial volume, and the exponential speedup in the bosonic truncation level carries over to QCD and to the Kogut–Susskind Hamiltonian as a special limit.

What carries the argument

The central object is the truncated boson–fermion Hilbert space built from the orbifold-lattice Hamiltonian, whose bosonic part is a polynomial in noncompact coordinates and momenta. The key mechanism is the conversion of Pauli-$Z$ strings into CNOT ladders via identities such as $Z_{a_1}\cdots Z_{a_n}=(\prod_i C_{a_i,a_n})Z_{a_n}(\prod_i C_{a_i,a_n})$, combined with a site ordering that makes most ladders cancel between neighboring Trotter terms; the Verstraete–Cirac transform achieves the same end by constructing auxiliary fermions so that no long Pauli strings arise. This is what reduces the per-step gate count to $O(L^d)$ and makes the quantum Fourier transform and block encoding efficient.

What would settle it

Compile the paper's Trotter step for $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ Yang–Mills on a $4^3$ orbifold lattice with $Q=3$, count all elementary gates, and repeat at $Q=4,5$ while holding lattice spacing fixed; if the gate count grows faster than $L^3$ or the physical observable drifts uncontrollably with $Q$, the paper's exponential-speedup claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a wide class of boson–fermion Hamiltonians of the form $\hat{H}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_a\hat{p}_a^2+V(\hat{x},\hat{\psi})$, including orbifold-lattice QCD, admits explicit oracle-free quantum circuits for Hamiltonian time evolution. After truncating each bosonic mode to $\Lambda=2^Q$ points with periodic boundary conditions, the paper shows that a Trotter step can be compiled into $O(L^d)$ elementary gates: the Jordan–Wigner transform converts fermions into long Pauli strings, but a carefully ordered product of Pauli rotations makes the intervening CNOT chains cancel, leaving only volume-scaling circuits; the Verstraete–Cirac transform instead introduces auxiliary fermions so that no long Pauli strings appear at all, which also makes block encoding of the Hamiltonian as a linear combination of unitaries straightforward. Because the orbifold-lattice Hamiltonian is a polynomial in noncompact variables with no group theory, the construction works for any $N$ and any matter content, and the Kogut–Susskind Hamiltonian inherits the resource advantage as a special limit.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a finite truncation of each bosonic mode, with $R$ large enough and $\Lambda=2^Q$ points per mode, captures the relevant physics, since the paper gives no bound linking $R$, $Q$, lattice spacing, coupling, and simulation error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For QCD on a three-dimensional lattice, one Trotter step of time evolution can be compiled explicitly into $O(L^3)$ CNOT, Hadamard, phase, and rotation gates, with no oracle calls or classical circuit-searching step.
  • The same resource count holds for any gauge group $\mathrm{SU}(N)$ and any matter content, because the orbifold-lattice Hamiltonian is written without group-theoretic variables.
  • The Kogut–Susskind Hamiltonian, obtained as a special limit of the orbifold lattice, inherits the exponential speedup with respect to the bosonic truncation level.
  • With the Verstraete–Cirac transform, the Hamiltonian admits an efficient block encoding as a linear combination of unitaries, not just Trotterized time evolution, enabling fault-tolerant algorithms such as quantum phase estimation.
  • The gate count per Trotter step is proportional to the spatial volume, which the paper identifies as optimal scaling for local lattice Hamiltonians.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editor's inference: the CNOT-cancellation pattern should carry over to any local fermion-bilinear lattice Hamiltonian whose interaction graph can be ordered so that long Jordan–Wigner strings wind around a bounded region; this predicts volume scaling for a wider class of condensed-matter models than gauge theories.
  • Editor's inference: because the paper leaves state preparation open, an efficient construction of orbifold-lattice ground states in either the coordinate or momentum basis would turn the per-step circuit count into a full end-to-end resource estimate.
  • Editor's inference: a systematic numerical study of truncation convergence as the lattice spacing shrinks would determine how the required qubits per boson scale with $1/a$, which is the condition for the exponential speedup to survive beyond the per-step gate count.
  • Editor's inference: the Verstraete–Cirac block encoding may combine with more compact fermion-to-qubit encodings to reduce the ancilla overhead from $d$ auxiliary fermions per site, while preserving the $O(L^d)$ gate count.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript generalizes a bosonic quantum simulation framework to systems with both bosons and fermions, and applies it to QCD in the orbifold lattice formulation and to the Kogut-Susskind Hamiltonian as a limiting case. For Hamiltonian time evolution via Trotterization on an L^d spatial lattice, it claims that one Trotter step can be implemented with O(L^d) CNOT gates, Hadamard gates, phase gates, and one-qubit rotations for any matter content and any SU(N). The fermionic degrees of freedom are encoded either with a Jordan-Wigner transform, where the authors exhibit systematic cancellations of long CNOT chains, or with a Verstraete-Cirac transform, which eliminates long Pauli strings and also enables block encoding as a linear combination of unitaries. The authors state that no oracles are used and that the resource estimates are rigorous and free of hidden costs.

Significance. The paper's core technical contributions are explicit circuit-level identities that make Trotterized fermion-boson interactions scale with the lattice volume, a Verstraete-Cirac construction that keeps Pauli strings at O(1) length and enables LCU block encoding, and a claimed exponential speedup in the bosonic truncation level Q relative to previous compact-variable formulations. If the resource claims are correct, this is a meaningful step toward programmable, oracle-free digital quantum simulation of non-Abelian lattice gauge theories with dynamical matter. Strengths include the fully explicit nature of the circuits, the absence of oracles, the analytic gate counting, and the generality in N, matter content, and spatial dimension. However, the advertised end-to-end exponential speedup is conditional on truncation-error and state-preparation analyses that the manuscript does not supply, and the headline O(L^d) gate count is not literally consistent with the Q-dependence derived in Sec. 2.2.1.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 2.1.1 and Sec. 6] The abstract claims an exponential speedup with respect to the bosonic truncation level and 'rigorous resource estimations without a hidden cost,' but the manuscript gives no bound linking the truncation parameters R and Q to the lattice spacing, coupling, and target simulation accuracy. Sec. 2.1.1 states only that R must be taken sufficiently large so that x ~ ±R states are not significantly excited and that truncation effects typically require numerical investigation; Sec. 6 explicitly states that state preparation is not discussed. Because the total cost of simulating QCD at fixed physical accuracy includes the cost of choosing Q as a function of the lattice spacing and error tolerance, the per-Trotter-step gate count does not by itself establish the advertised exponential speedup. This missing truncation-error analysis is load-bearing for the central claim and should either be supplied or the claims should be weakened accordingly.
  2. [Sec. 2.2.1 vs. abstract and Sec. 3.2.5] The abstract and Sec. 3.2.5 state that one Trotter step uses O(L^d) CNOT gates, Hadamard gates, phase gates, and one-qubit rotations, but Sec. 2.2.1 gives the per-step cost for a degree-n potential as ~L^d Q^n couplings and explicitly notes that the cost is polynomial in Q. Since the claimed exponential speedup is specifically with respect to Q, the Q^n dependence cannot be absorbed into an unspecified constant in the O(L^d) notation. The bounds should be stated as O(L^d Q^n) (or O(L^d poly(Q))) whenever Q is not treated as a fixed constant, otherwise the headline claim is internally inconsistent with the detailed counting.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2.4, Eq. (49) and Appendix A, Eq. (66)] The product notation in Eq. (49) is very difficult to parse; the indices such as C_{2^ell-1 j - 2^ell-2, 2^ell-1 j} should be rewritten with a clear recursive definition or a fully spelled-out example. The same issue affects Eq. (66) in Appendix A.
  2. [Sec. 5] The statement that the Verstraete-Cirac transform uses 'd per site' ancillary qubits appears inconsistent with Sec. 4.1.2, where the three-dimensional construction introduces four real auxiliary fermions per site (two for the within-slice links and two for the links along the third direction). The ancilla overhead should be stated precisely as a function of d.
  3. [Sec. 4.1.1] The claim that the constraint i rho_n chi_{n'} = 1 is preserved under Hamiltonian time evolution is stated without proof; the authors should add a sentence noting that the effective Hamiltonian commutes with the constraint projectors because each auxiliary fermion appears in exactly one link in the chosen ordering.
  4. [Sec. 3.2.3 and Sec. 3.2.5] The generalization from two to d>2 spatial dimensions is described only schematically; for periodic boundary conditions in all directions it would be helpful to state explicitly how the CNOT-cancellation argument is organized for each dimension and whether the depth reduction of Sec. 3.2.4 is applied to the surviving chains.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No constructional circularity: the O(L^d) gate-count derivation is an explicit construction with CNOT cancellation, not a fit or renaming; the main exposure is reliance on same-author orbifold-lattice/truncation assumptions, an inherited-assumption risk rather than a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The new fermionic part of the paper is derived, not assumed: the Jordan-Wigner and Verstraete-Cirac mappings are written out (Eqs. (26)-(31)), the CNOT identities (23a)-(24) are proven in text, and the cancellation of long CNOT chains in Sec. 3.2 is shown explicitly for d=1 and d=2, with the generalization to d>2 stated by the same construction. The claimed O(L^d) per-Trotter-step count is a direct consequence of these cancellations plus the volume scaling of the number of Hamiltonian terms, so it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The bosonic framework (Sec. 2) is reviewed with enough detail (Eqs. (8)-(23)) that the polynomial-in-Q cost is visible in the paper itself. The remaining self-references are to prior same-author work: Ref. [1] for the bosonic framework, and Refs. [97,98,100] for the orbifold-lattice formulation and the Kogut-Susskind special limit. These are load-bearing as background equivalence claims, but they are not re-derived here; that makes the QCD/KS speedup claim conditional on accepting those references, an inherited assumption rather than a circular reduction within this paper. The most serious limitation is not circularity: Sec. 2.1.1 states that R must be large enough so x~±R states are not excited and that truncation effects typically require numerical investigation, while Sec. 6 says state preparation is not discussed; no bound links Q, R, lattice spacing, coupling, and error. That is a completeness/correctness gap in the end-to-end exponential-speedup claim, not a self-definitional loop. Therefore no circular step is flagged; score 2 reflects the modest but real self-citation dependence of the framework's premises.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central contribution has no fitted constants, but the claimed exponential speedup inherits two unproven inputs: truncation parameters Q and R are described without rigorous error bounds, and the orbifold-lattice-to-QCD equivalence is established in prior same-author papers. Auxiliary fermions are a standard encoding device, not a physical postulate.

free parameters (2)
  • Q (qubits per bosonic mode)
    Chosen truncation parameter. Gate counts grow polynomially in Q, and the claimed exponential speedup is relative to this parameter. No rigorous bound relating Q to physical accuracy is given in this paper.
  • R (coordinate cutoff)
    Chosen sufficiently large so that boundary effects are negligible, as stated in Sec. 2.1.1. The paper defers truncation-error analysis to numerical studies, so this is an unproven load-bearing choice.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The orbifold lattice Hamiltonian for QCD belongs to the class H = H_bos + V_fer(x, psi) with polynomial V_fer and reproduces QCD/Kogut-Susskind physics via decoupled scalar fields.
    Invoked in Sec. 1 and Sec. 3.2.5. Established in Refs. [98,100], which are prior works by overlapping authors. If this is wrong, the circuits simulate the wrong theory.
  • domain assumption Fermionic V_fer can be taken as a polynomial; non-polynomial potentials can be Taylor-truncated with negligible effect.
    Stated in Sec. 1: 'we assume V_fer to be a polynomial... we can truncate the Taylor expansion'. No error bound is provided for the truncation.
  • standard math Jordan-Wigner and Verstraete-Cirac transforms correctly encode canonical (anti)commutation relations.
    Used throughout Secs. 3 and 4. Standard results from Refs. [107,110,121].
  • standard math The CNOT identities used for Pauli-string decompositions, including C^2 = I and commutation of same-target CNOTs, hold.
    Used in Eqs. (23), (30)-(49), and (66). These are elementary identities for CNOT gates.
  • domain assumption For the Verstraete-Cirac transform, states are restricted to the Fock vacuum of auxiliary fermions, and Hamiltonian time evolution preserves this sector.
    Sec. 4.1.1: 'If i rho_n chi_n' is set to 1 as the initial condition, the Hamiltonian time evolution does not alter this condition.' This reduction replaces the original Hamiltonian on the physical sector.
  • ad hoc to paper The truncated coordinate space with periodic boundary x+2R~x and Lambda=2^Q points captures relevant low-energy states.
    Sec. 2.1.1 states R must be sufficiently large and truncation effects require numerical investigation. This is a paper-specific assumption with no proof.
invented entities (2)
  • Auxiliary real fermions rho_n, chi_n and complex fermions c_{n,n'} in the Verstraete-Cirac transform
    purpose: Eliminate long Pauli strings in 2D and 3D fermion couplings by confining to the Fock vacuum sector, recovering the original Hamiltonian.
    Computational ancillas from Ref. [121], not a new physical entity. No external falsifiable handle; correctness rests on the stated Fock-vacuum sector restriction.
  • Noncompact scalar fields in the orbifold lattice formulation
    purpose: Allow noncompact variables so that no group theory is needed for circuit construction; the scalars are claimed to decouple from low-energy physics.
    Inherited from Refs. [98,100]. This paper provides no independent check that the scalars decouple quantitatively for QCD simulations. If they do not decouple, the simulated theory is not QCD.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Universal framework with exponential speedup for the quantum simulation of quantum field theories including QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H5ZWCQ4D

@misc{pith2026250618966,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Universal framework with exponential speedup for the quantum simulation of quantum field theories including QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H5ZWCQ4D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18966}
}
abstract

We present a quantum simulation framework universally applicable to a wide class of quantum systems, including quantum field theories such as quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Specifically, we generalize an efficient quantum simulation protocol developed for bosonic theories in [Halimeh et al., arXiv:2411.13161] which, when applied to Yang-Mills theory, demonstrated an exponential resource advantage with respect to the truncation level of the bosonic modes, to systems with both bosons and fermions using the Jordan-Wigner transform and also the Verstraete-Cirac transform. We apply this framework to QCD using the orbifold lattice formulation and achieve an exponential speedup compared to previous proposals. As a by-product, exponential speedup is achieved in the quantum simulation of the Kogut-Susskind Hamiltonian, the latter being a special limit of the orbifold lattice Hamiltonian. In the case of Hamiltonian time evolution of a theory on an $L^d$ spatial lattice via Trotterization, one Trotter step can be realized using $\mathcal{O}(L^d)$ numbers of CNOT gates, Hadamard gates, phase gates, and one-qubit rotations. We show this analytically for any matter content and $\mathrm{SU}(N)$ gauge group with any $N$. Even when we use the Jordan-Wigner transform, we can utilize the cancellation of quantum gates to significantly simplify the quantum circuit. We also discuss a block encoding of the Hamiltonian as a linear combination of unitaries using the Verstraete-Cirac transform. Our protocols do not assume oracles, but rather present explicit constructions with rigorous resource estimations without a hidden cost, and are thus readily implementable on a quantum computer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18966 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two-dimensional L × L lattice with periodic boundary conditions. L 2 points are ordered following ≺. for j = 1, · · · , L. We consider the Trotter decomposition. For j = 2, · · · , L, we can convert a Pauli string to CNOT gates as exp (−iϵV2) = C3,L+1C4,L+1 · · · CL,L+1 × exp  −iϵσ2 ⊗ ZL+1 ⊗ σL+2 ⊗ Oˆ (bos) j  × C3,L+1C4,L+1 · · · CL,L+1 , (38) exp (−iϵV3) = C4,L+1 · · · CL,L+1 · CL+2,L+1 × exp  −iϵσ3 ⊗ ZL+1 ⊗ σL… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. This figure explains the final line in ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The ordering of lattice points for the Verstraete–Cirac transform in two spatial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The ordering of lattice points for the Verstraete–Cirac transform in three spatial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Local Thermalization of SU(2) Lattice Gauge Fields on Quantum Computers

    hep-lat 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Quantum hardware simulation of SU(2) lattice gauge thermalization matches classical extrapolations up to 101 plaquettes after error mitigation, establishing feasibility for chaotic quantum field systems.

  2. Quantum Error Correction Codes for Truncated SU(2) Lattice Gauge Theories

    quant-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Gauss's law constraints in jmax=1/2 SU(2) lattice gauge theory are converted into stabilizer codes that correct single-qubit errors using about 9N or 12N physical qubits per N plaquettes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

133 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A universal framework for the quantum simulation of Yang-Mills theory,

    J. C. Halimeh, M. Hanada, S. Matsuura, F. Nori, E. Rinaldi, and A. Sch¨ afer, “A universal framework for the quantum simulation of Yang-Mills theory,” arXiv:2411.13161 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    Lattice gauge theory simulations in the quantum information era,

    M. Dalmonte and S. Montangero, “Lattice gauge theory simulations in the quantum information era,” Contemp. Phys.57no. 3, (2016) 388–412,arXiv:1602.03776 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Simulating Lattice Gauge Theories within Quantum Technologies,

    M. C. Ba˜ nulset al., “Simulating Lattice Gauge Theories within Quantum Technologies,” Eur. Phys. J. D74no. 8, (2020) 165,arXiv:1911.00003 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Quantum simulations of lattice gauge theories using ultracold atoms in optical lattices,

    E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, “Quantum simulations of lattice gauge theories using ultracold atoms in optical lattices,” Rep. Prog. Phys.79no. 1, (Dec, 2015) 014401

    2015

  5. [5]

    Cold atoms meet lattice gauge theory,

    M. Aidelsburger et al., “Cold atoms meet lattice gauge theory,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A380(2021) 20210064,arXiv:2106.03063 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Quantum simulation of lattice gauge theories in more than one space dimension—requirements, challenges and methods,

    E. Zohar, “Quantum simulation of lattice gauge theories in more than one space dimension—requirements, challenges and methods,” Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. A 380no. 2216, (Feb., 2022) 20210069,arXiv:2106.04609 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Standard model physics and the digital quantum revolution: thoughts about the interface,

    N. Klco, A. Roggero, and M. J. Savage, “Standard model physics and the digital quantum revolution: thoughts about the interface,” Reports on Progress in Physics 85no. 6, (May, 2022) 064301.https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/ac58a4

    doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ac58a4 2022

  8. [8]

    Quantum Simulation for High-Energy Physics,

    C. W. Bauer et al., “Quantum Simulation for High-Energy Physics,” PRX Quantum 4no. 2, (2023) 027001,arXiv:2204.03381 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 133 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum Computing for High-Energy Physics: State of the Art and Challenges,

    A. Di Meglio et al., “Quantum Computing for High-Energy Physics: State of the Art and Challenges,” PRX Quantum5no. 3, (2024) 037001,arXiv:2307.03236 [quant-ph]. 28

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Emergent u(1) lattice gauge theory in rydberg atom arrays,

    Y. Cheng and H. Zhai, “Emergent u(1) lattice gauge theory in rydberg atom arrays,” Nature Reviews Physics6no. 9, (2024) 566–576. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-024-00749-6

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Cold-atom quantum simulators of gauge theories,

    J. C. Halimeh, M. Aidelsburger, F. Grusdt, P. Hauke, and B. Yang, “Cold-atom quantum simulators of gauge theories,” Nature Physics (2025) . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-024-02721-8. [12]NuQSCollaboration, T. D. Cohen, H. Lamm, S. Lawrence, and Y. Yamauchi, “Quantum algorithm...

    2025 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Quantum computing for energy correlators,

    K. Lee, F. Turro, and X. Yao, “Quantum computing for energy correlators,” Phys. Rev. D111(Mar, 2025) 054514. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.054514

    2025 doi

  5. [14]

    Classical and quantum computing of shear viscosity for (2+1)D SU(2) gauge theory,

    F. Turro, A. Ciavarella, and X. Yao, “Classical and quantum computing of shear viscosity for (2+1)D SU(2) gauge theory,” Phys. Rev. D109no. 11, (2024) 114511, arXiv:2402.04221 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Confinement and lattice QED electric flux-tubes simulated with ultracold atoms,

    E. Zohar and B. Reznik, “Confinement and lattice QED electric flux-tubes simulated with ultracold atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett.107(2011) 275301, arXiv:1108.1562 [quant-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Simulating Compact Quantum Electrodynamics with ultracold atoms: Probing confinement and nonperturbative effects,

    E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, “Simulating Compact Quantum Electrodynamics with ultracold atoms: Probing confinement and nonperturbative effects,” Phys. Rev. Lett.109(2012) 125302,arXiv:1204.6574 [quant-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Atomic quantum simulation of dynamical gauge fields coupled to fermionic matter: From string breaking to evolution after a quench,

    D. Banerjee, M. Dalmonte, M. M¨ uller, E. Rico, P. Stebler, U.-J. Wiese, and P. Zoller, “Atomic quantum simulation of dynamical gauge fields coupled to fermionic matter: From string breaking to evolution after a quench,” Phys. Rev. Lett.109no. 17, (Oct, 2012) . http://dx.doi.o...

    2012 doi

  9. [18]

    Simulating (2 + 1)-dimensional lattice qed with dynamical matter using ultracold atoms,

    E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, “Simulating (2 + 1)-dimensional lattice qed with dynamical matter using ultracold atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett.110(Jan, 2013) 055302.https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.055302

    2013 doi

  10. [19]

    Atomic quantum simulation ofU(n) and SU(n) non-abelian lattice gauge theories,

    D. Banerjee, M. B¨ ogli, M. Dalmonte, E. Rico, P. Stebler, U.-J. Wiese, and P. Zoller, “Atomic quantum simulation ofU(n) and SU(n) non-abelian lattice gauge theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett.110(Mar, 2013) 125303. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.125303

    2013 doi

  11. [20]

    Tuning the topological θ-angle in cold-atom quantum simulators of gauge theories,

    J. C. Halimeh, I. P. McCulloch, B. Yang, and P. Hauke, “Tuning the topological θ-angle in cold-atom quantum simulators of gauge theories,” PRX Quantum3(Nov,

  12. [21]

    Tunable confinement-deconfinement transition in an ultracold-atom quantum simulator,

    Y. Cheng, S. Liu, W. Zheng, P. Zhang, and H. Zhai, “Tunable confinement-deconfinement transition in an ultracold-atom quantum simulator,” PRX Quantum3(Nov, 2022) 040317. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.040317

    2022 doi

  13. [22]

    Quantum simulator of link models using spinor dipolar ultracold atoms,

    P. Fontana, J. C. P. Barros, and A. Trombettoni, “Quantum simulator of link models using spinor dipolar ultracold atoms,”. https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.14836

    arXiv

  14. [23]

    abinitioderivation of lattice gauge theory dynamics for cold gases in optical lattices,

    F. M. Surace, P. Fromholz, N. D. Oppong, M. Dalmonte, and M. Aidelsburger, “abinitioderivation of lattice gauge theory dynamics for cold gases in optical lattices,” PRX Quantum4(2023) 020330. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.4.020330

    2023 doi

  15. [24]

    Large-scale 2 + 1d U(1) gauge theory with dynamical matter in a cold-atom quantum simulator,

    J. Osborne, I. P. McCulloch, B. Yang, P. Hauke, and J. C. Halimeh, “Large-scale 2 + 1d U(1) gauge theory with dynamical matter in a cold-atom quantum simulator,”arXiv:2211.01380 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    arXiv

  16. [25]

    Spin-sU(1) quantum link models with dynamical matter on a quantum simulator,

    J. Osborne, B. Yang, I. P. McCulloch, P. Hauke, and J. C. Halimeh, “Spin-sU(1) quantum link models with dynamical matter on a quantum simulator,” arXiv:2305.06368 [cond-mat.quant-gas]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.06368

    arXiv

  17. [26]

    Real-time dynamics of lattice gauge theories with a few-qubit quantum computer,

    E. A. Martinez, C. A. Muschik, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, A. Erhard, M. Heyl, P. Hauke, M. Dalmonte, T. Monz, P. Zoller, and R. Blatt, “Real-time dynamics of lattice gauge theories with a few-qubit quantum computer,” Nature534no. 7608, (2016) 516–519.https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18318

    2016 doi

  18. [27]

    Quantum-classical computation of Schwinger model dynamics using quantum computers,

    N. Klco, E. F. Dumitrescu, A. J. McCaskey, T. D. Morris, R. C. Pooser, M. Sanz, E. Solano, P. Lougovski, and M. J. Savage, “Quantum-classical computation of Schwinger model dynamics using quantum computers,” Phys. Rev. A98(Sep,

  19. [28]

    Realization of density-dependent Peierls phases to engineer quantized gauge fields coupled to ultracold matter,

    F. G¨ org, K. Sandholzer, J. Minguzzi, R. Desbuquois, M. Messer, and T. Esslinger, “Realization of density-dependent Peierls phases to engineer quantized gauge fields coupled to ultracold matter,” Nat. Phys.15no. 11, (2019) 1161–1167. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-019-0615-4

    2019 doi

  20. [29]

    Floquet approach toZ2 lattice gauge theories with ultracold atoms in optical lattices,

    C. Schweizer, F. Grusdt, M. Berngruber, L. Barbiero, E. Demler, N. Goldman, I. Bloch, and M. Aidelsburger, “Floquet approach toZ2 lattice gauge theories with ultracold atoms in optical lattices,” Nat. Phys.15no. 11, (2019) 1168–1173. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-019-0649-7

    2019 doi

  21. [30]

    A scalable realization of local U(1) gauge 30 invariance in cold atomic mixtures,

    A. Mil, T. V. Zache, A. Hegde, A. Xia, R. P. Bhatt, M. K. Oberthaler, P. Hauke, J. Berges, and F. Jendrzejewski, “A scalable realization of local U(1) gauge 30 invariance in cold atomic mixtures,” Science367no. 6482, (2020) 1128–1130. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367...

    2020

  22. [31]

    Observation of gauge invariance in a 71-site Bose–Hubbard quantum simulator,

    B. Yang, H. Sun, R. Ott, H.-Y. Wang, T. V. Zache, J. C. Halimeh, Z.-S. Yuan, P. Hauke, and J.-W. Pan, “Observation of gauge invariance in a 71-site Bose–Hubbard quantum simulator,” Nature587no. 7834, (2020) 392–396. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2910-8

    2020 doi

  23. [32]

    Observation of emergent𭟋 2 gauge invariance in a superconducting circuit,

    Z. Wang, Z.-Y. Ge, Z. Xiang, X. Song, R.-Z. Huang, P. Song, X.-Y. Guo, L. Su, K. Xu, D. Zheng, and H. Fan, “Observation of emergent𭟋 2 gauge invariance in a superconducting circuit,” Phys. Rev. Research4(Jun, 2022) L022060. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.L022060

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    Thermalization dynamics of a gauge theory on a quantum simulator,

    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,” Science377no. 6603, (2022) 311–314

    2022

  25. [34]

    Interrelated thermalization and quantum criticality in a lattice gauge simulator,

    H.-Y. Wang, W.-Y. Zhang, Z. Yao, Y. Liu, Z.-H. Zhu, Y.-G. Zheng, X.-K. Wang, H. Zhai, Z.-S. Yuan, and J.-W. Pan, “Interrelated thermalization and quantum criticality in a lattice gauge simulator,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131(Aug, 2023) 050401. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevL...

    2023 doi

  26. [35]

    Observation of microscopic confinement dynamics by a tunable topologicalθ-angle,

    W.-Y. Zhang et al., “Observation of microscopic confinement dynamics by a tunable topologicalθ-angle,” Nature Phys.21no. 1, (2025) 155–160,arXiv:2306.11794 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Quantum simulation of su(3) lattice yang-mills theory at leading order in large-N c expansion,

    A. N. Ciavarella and C. W. Bauer, “Quantum simulation of su(3) lattice yang-mills theory at leading order in large-N c expansion,” Phys. Rev. Lett.133(Sep, 2024) 111901.https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.111901

    2024 doi

  28. [37]

    String Breaking in the Heavy Quark Limit with Scalable Circuits,

    A. N. Ciavarella, “String Breaking in the Heavy Quark Limit with Scalable Circuits,”arXiv:2411.05915 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

  29. [38]

    Observation of string-breaking dynamics in a quantum simulator,

    A. De, A. Lerose, D. Luo, F. M. Surace, A. Schuckert, E. R. Bennewitz, B. Ware, W. Morong, K. S. Collins, Z. Davoudi, A. V. Gorshkov, O. Katz, and C. Monroe, “Observation of string-breaking dynamics in a quantum simulator,” arXiv:2410.13815 [quant-ph].https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.13815

    arXiv

  30. [39]

    String breaking mechanism in a lattice schwinger model simulator,

    Y. Liu, W.-Y. Zhang, Z.-H. Zhu, M.-G. He, Z.-S. Yuan, and J.-W. Pan, “String breaking mechanism in a lattice schwinger model simulator,”arXiv:2411.15443 [cond-mat.quant-gas].https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.15443

    arXiv

  31. [40]

    Scalable Circuits for Preparing Ground States on Digital Quantum Computers: The Schwinger Model Vacuum on 100 Qubits,

    R. C. Farrell, M. Illa, A. N. Ciavarella, and M. J. Savage, “Scalable Circuits for Preparing Ground States on Digital Quantum Computers: The Schwinger Model Vacuum on 100 Qubits,” PRX Quantum5no. 2, (2024) 020315,arXiv:2308.04481 [quant-ph]. 31

    2024 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Quantum simulations of hadron dynamics in the Schwinger model using 112 qubits,

    R. C. Farrell, M. Illa, A. N. Ciavarella, and M. J. Savage, “Quantum simulations of hadron dynamics in the Schwinger model using 112 qubits,” Phys. Rev. D109 no. 11, (2024) 114510,arXiv:2401.08044 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Probing false vacuum decay on a cold-atom gauge-theory quantum simulator,

    Z.-H. Zhu, Y. Liu, G. Lagnese, F. M. Surace, W.-Y. Zhang, M.-G. He, J. C. Halimeh, M. Dalmonte, S. C. Morampudi, F. Wilczek, Z.-S. Yuan, and J.-W. Pan, “Probing false vacuum decay on a cold-atom gauge-theory quantum simulator,” arXiv:2411.12565 [cond-mat.quant-gas]. https://ar...

    arXiv

  34. [43]

    Trailhead for quantum simulation of SU(3) Yang-Mills lattice gauge theory in the local multiplet basis,

    A. Ciavarella, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, “Trailhead for quantum simulation of SU(3) Yang-Mills lattice gauge theory in the local multiplet basis,” Phys. Rev. D 103no. 9, (2021) 094501,arXiv:2101.10227 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Quantum simulation of lattice QCD with improved Hamiltonians,

    A. N. Ciavarella, “Quantum simulation of lattice QCD with improved Hamiltonians,” Phys. Rev. D108no. 9, (2023) 094513,arXiv:2307.05593 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Preparation of the SU(3) lattice Yang-Mills vacuum with variational quantum methods,

    A. N. Ciavarella and I. A. Chernyshev, “Preparation of the SU(3) lattice Yang-Mills vacuum with variational quantum methods,” Phys. Rev. D105no. 7, (2022) 074504,arXiv:2112.09083 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Primitive quantum gates for an SU(2) discrete subgroup: Binary octahedral,

    E. J. Gustafson, H. Lamm, and F. Lovelace, “Primitive quantum gates for an SU(2) discrete subgroup: Binary octahedral,” Phys. Rev. D109no. 5, (2024) 054503, arXiv:2312.10285 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Primitive quantum gates for an SU(3) discrete subgroup: Σ(36×3),

    E. J. Gustafson, Y. Ji, H. Lamm, E. M. Murairi, S. O. Perez, and S. Zhu, “Primitive quantum gates for an SU(3) discrete subgroup: Σ(36×3),” Phys. Rev. D110no. 3, (2024) 034515,arXiv:2405.05973 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Block encodings of discrete subgroups on a quantum computer,

    H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, J. Shu, Y.-L. Wang, and B. Xu, “Block encodings of discrete subgroups on a quantum computer,” Phys. Rev. D110no. 5, (2024) 054505, arXiv:2405.12890 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Preparations for quantum simulations of quantum chromodynamics in 1+1 dimensions. I. Axial gauge,

    R. C. Farrell, I. A. Chernyshev, S. J. M. Powell, N. A. Zemlevskiy, M. Illa, and M. J. Savage, “Preparations for quantum simulations of quantum chromodynamics in 1+1 dimensions. I. Axial gauge,” Phys. Rev. D107no. 5, (2023) 054512, arXiv:2207.01731 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Preparations for quantum simulations of quantum chromodynamics in 1+1 dimensions. II. Single-baryonβ-decay in real time,

    R. C. Farrell, I. A. Chernyshev, S. J. M. Powell, N. A. Zemlevskiy, M. Illa, and M. J. Savage, “Preparations for quantum simulations of quantum chromodynamics in 1+1 dimensions. II. Single-baryonβ-decay in real time,” Phys. Rev. D107no. 5, (2023) 054513,arXiv:2209.10781 [quant-ph]. 32

    2023 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Sequency Hierarchy Truncation (SeqHT) for Adiabatic State Preparation and Time Evolution in Quantum Simulations,

    Z. Li, D. M. Grabowska, and M. J. Savage, “Sequency Hierarchy Truncation (SeqHT) for Adiabatic State Preparation and Time Evolution in Quantum Simulations,”arXiv:2407.13835 [quant-ph]

  43. [52]

    Scalable Quantum Simulations of Scattering in Scalar Field Theory on 120 Qubits,

    N. A. Zemlevskiy, “Scalable Quantum Simulations of Scattering in Scalar Field Theory on 120 Qubits,”arXiv:2411.02486 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

  44. [53]

    A qubit model for U(1) lattice gauge theory,

    R. Lewis and R. M. Woloshyn, “A qubit model for U(1) lattice gauge theory,” 5, 2019.arXiv:1905.09789 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [54]

    SU(2) hadrons on a quantum computer via a variational approach,

    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.12no. 1, (2021) 6499,arXiv:2102.08920 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Self-mitigating Trotter circuits for SU(2) lattice gauge theory on a quantum computer,

    S. A Rahman, R. Lewis, E. Mendicelli, and S. Powell, “Self-mitigating Trotter circuits for SU(2) lattice gauge theory on a quantum computer,” Phys. Rev. D106 no. 7, (2022) 074502,arXiv:2205.09247 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Simulating one-dimensional quantum chromodynamics on a quantum computer: Real-time evolutions of tetra- and pentaquarks,

    Y. Y. Atas, J. F. Haase, J. Zhang, V. Wei, S. M. L. Pfaendler, R. Lewis, and C. A. Muschik, “Simulating one-dimensional quantum chromodynamics on a quantum computer: Real-time evolutions of tetra- and pentaquarks,” Phys. Rev. Res.5no. 3, (2023) 033184,arXiv:2207.03473 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Real time evolution and a traveling excitation in SU(2) pure gauge theory on a quantum computer.,

    E. Mendicelli, R. Lewis, S. A. Rahman, and S. Powell, “Real time evolution and a traveling excitation in SU(2) pure gauge theory on a quantum computer.,” PoS LATTICE2022(2023) 025,arXiv:2210.11606 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [58]

    From square plaquettes to triamond lattices for SU(2) gauge theory,

    A. H. Z. Kavaki and R. Lewis, “From square plaquettes to triamond lattices for SU(2) gauge theory,” Commun. Phys.7no. 1, (2024) 208,arXiv:2401.14570 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [59]

    The phase diagram of quantum chromodynamics in one dimension on a quantum computer,

    A. T. Than, Y. Y. Atas, A. Chakraborty, J. Zhang, M. T. Diaz, K. Wen, X. Liu, R. Lewis, A. M. Green, C. A. Muschik, and N. M. Linke, “The phase diagram of quantum chromodynamics in one dimension on a quantum computer,” arXiv:2501.00579 [quant-ph].https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.00579

  51. [60]

    First-order phase transition of the schwinger model with a quantum computer,

    T. Angelides, P. Naredi, A. Crippa, K. Jansen, S. K¨ uhn, I. Tavernelli, and D. S. Wang, “First-order phase transition of the schwinger model with a quantum computer,” npj Quantum Information11no. 1, (2025) 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-024-00950-6

    2025 doi

  52. [61]

    Realizing string breaking dynamics in az 2 lattice gauge theory on quantum hardware,

    C. Alexandrou, A. Athenodorou, K. Blekos, G. Polykratis, and S. K¨ uhn, “Realizing string breaking dynamics in az 2 lattice gauge theory on quantum hardware,” arXiv:2504.13760 [hep-lat].https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.13760. 33

    arXiv

  53. [62]

    Visualizing dynamics of charges and strings in (2 + 1)D lattice gauge theories,

    T. A. Cochran et al., “Visualizing dynamics of charges and strings in (2 + 1)D lattice gauge theories,” Nature642no. 8067, (2025) 315–320,arXiv:2409.17142 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Observation of disorder-free localization and efficient disorder averaging on a quantum processor,

    G. Gyawali et al., “Observation of disorder-free localization and efficient disorder averaging on a quantum processor,”arXiv:2410.06557 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

  55. [64]

    Observation of string breaking on a (2 + 1)d rydberg quantum simulator,

    D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, M. Hamdan, T. V. Zache, B. Braverman, M. Kornjaˇ ca, A. Lukin, S. H. Cant´ u, F. Liu, S.-T. Wang, A. Keesling, M. D. Lukin, P. Zoller, and A. Bylinskii, “Observation of string breaking on a (2 + 1)d rydberg quantum simulator,” Nature642no. 8067, (2025) 32...

    2025 doi

  56. [65]

    Analysis of the confinement string in (2 + 1)-dimensional quantum electrodynamics with a trapped-ion quantum computer,

    A. Crippa, K. Jansen, and E. Rinaldi, “Analysis of the confinement string in (2 + 1)-dimensional quantum electrodynamics with a trapped-ion quantum computer,” arXiv:2411.05628 [hep-lat].https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.05628

    arXiv

  57. [66]

    Observation of hadron scattering in a lattice gauge theory on a quantum computer,

    J. Schuhmacher, G.-X. Su, J. J. Osborne, A. Gandon, J. C. Halimeh, and I. Tavernelli, “Observation of hadron scattering in a lattice gauge theory on a quantum computer,”arXiv:2505.20387 [quant-ph]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.20387

    arXiv

  58. [67]

    Quantum computation of hadron scattering in a lattice gauge theory,

    Z. Davoudi, C.-C. Hsieh, and S. V. Kadam, “Quantum computation of hadron scattering in a lattice gauge theory,”arXiv:2505.20408 [quant-ph]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.20408

    arXiv

  59. [68]

    Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator,

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Omran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, “Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator,” Nature551no. 7682, (2017) 579–584.https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24622

    2017 doi

  60. [69]

    Observation of many-body scarring in a bose-hubbard quantum simulator,

    G.-X. Su, H. Sun, A. Hudomal, J.-Y. Desaules, Z.-Y. Zhou, B. Yang, J. C. Halimeh, Z.-S. Yuan, Z. Papi´ c, and J.-W. Pan, “Observation of many-body scarring in a bose-hubbard quantum simulator,” Phys. Rev. Res.5(Apr, 2023) 023010. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearc...

    2023 doi

  61. [70]

    Lattice gauge theories and string dynamics in Rydberg atom quantum simulators,

    F. M. Surace, P. P. Mazza, G. Giudici, A. Lerose, A. Gambassi, and M. Dalmonte, “Lattice gauge theories and string dynamics in Rydberg atom quantum simulators,” Phys. Rev. X10(May, 2020) 021041. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.10.021041

    2020 doi

  62. [71]

    Hypergrid subgraphs and the origin of scarred quantum walks in the many-body Hilbert space,

    J.-Y. Desaules, K. Bull, A. Daniel, and Z. Papi´ c, “Hypergrid subgraphs and the origin of scarred quantum walks in the many-body Hilbert space,” arXiv preprint (2021) ,arXiv:2112.06885. 34

    2021 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Prominent quantum many-body scars in a truncated schwinger model,

    J.-Y. Desaules, A. Hudomal, D. Banerjee, A. Sen, Z. Papi´ c, and J. C. Halimeh, “Prominent quantum many-body scars in a truncated schwinger model,” Phys. Rev. B107(May, 2023) 205112. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.107.205112

    2023 doi

  64. [73]

    Quantum scars from zero modes in an abelian lattice gauge theory on ladders,

    D. Banerjee and A. Sen, “Quantum scars from zero modes in an abelian lattice gauge theory on ladders,” Phys. Rev. Lett.126(Jun, 2021) 220601. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.220601

    2021 doi

  65. [74]

    Robust quantum many-body scars in lattice gauge theories,

    J. C. Halimeh, L. Barbiero, P. Hauke, F. Grusdt, and A. Bohrdt, “Robust quantum many-body scars in lattice gauge theories,” Quantum7(May, 2023) 1004. https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-05-15-1004

    2023 doi

  66. [75]

    Scars from protected zero modes and beyond inU(1) quantum link and quantum dimer models,

    S. Biswas, D. Banerjee, and A. Sen, “Scars from protected zero modes and beyond inU(1) quantum link and quantum dimer models,” SciPost Phys.12(2022) 148. https://scipost.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.12.5.148

    2022 doi

  67. [76]

    Sublattice scars and beyond in two-dimensional U(1) quantum link lattice gauge theories,

    I. Sau, P. Stornati, D. Banerjee, and A. Sen, “Sublattice scars and beyond in two-dimensional U(1) quantum link lattice gauge theories,” Phys. Rev. D109no. 3, (2024) 034519,arXiv:2311.06773 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Quantum many-body scarring in 2 + 1d gauge theories with dynamical matter,

    J. Osborne, I. P. McCulloch, and J. C. Halimeh, “Quantum many-body scarring in 2 + 1d gauge theories with dynamical matter,”arXiv:2403.08858 [cond-mat.quant-gas].https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.08858

    arXiv

  69. [78]

    Quantum many-body scars for arbitrary integer spin in 2 + 1D abelian gauge theories,

    T. Budde, M. Krstic Marinkovic, and J. C. Pinto Barros, “Quantum many-body scars for arbitrary integer spin in 2 + 1D abelian gauge theories,” Phys. Rev. D110 (Nov, 2024) 094506.https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.094506

    2024 doi

  70. [79]

    Quantum many-body scarring in a non-abelian lattice gauge theory,

    G. Calaj´ o, G. Cataldi, M. Rigobello, D. Wanisch, G. Magnifico, P. Silvi, S. Montangero, and J. C. Halimeh, “Quantum many-body scarring in a non-abelian lattice gauge theory,” Phys. Rev. Res.7(Mar, 2025) 013322. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.7.013322

    2025 doi

  71. [80]

    Ergodicity breaking arising from hilbert space fragmentation in dipole-conserving hamiltonians,

    P. Sala, T. Rakovszky, R. Verresen, M. Knap, and F. Pollmann, “Ergodicity breaking arising from hilbert space fragmentation in dipole-conserving hamiltonians,” Phys. Rev. X10(Feb, 2020) 011047. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.10.011047

    2020 doi

  72. [81]

    Localization from hilbert space shattering: From theory to physical realizations,

    V. Khemani, M. Hermele, and R. Nandkishore, “Localization from hilbert space shattering: From theory to physical realizations,” Phys. Rev. B101(May, 2020) 174204.https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.101.174204

    2020 doi

  73. [82]

    Hilbert space fragmentation at the origin of disorder-free localization in the lattice schwinger 35 model,

    J. Jeyaretnam, T. Bhore, J. J. Osborne, J. C. Halimeh, and Z. Papi´ c, “Hilbert space fragmentation at the origin of disorder-free localization in the lattice schwinger 35 model,” Communications Physics8no. 1, (2025) 172. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42005-025-02039-8

    2025 doi

  74. [83]

    Generic hilbert space fragmentation in kogut–susskind lattice gauge theories,

    A. N. Ciavarella, C. W. Bauer, and J. C. Halimeh, “Generic hilbert space fragmentation in kogut–susskind lattice gauge theories,”arXiv:2502.03533 [quant-ph].https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.03533

  75. [84]

    Statistical localization in a rydberg simulator ofu(1) lattice gauge theory,

    P. R. Datla, L. Zhao, W. W. Ho, N. Klco, and H. Loh, “Statistical localization in a rydberg simulator ofu(1) lattice gauge theory,”arXiv:2505.18143 [quant-ph]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.18143

  76. [85]

    Disorder-free localization,

    A. Smith, J. Knolle, D. L. Kovrizhin, and R. Moessner, “Disorder-free localization,” Phys. Rev. Lett.118(Jun, 2017) 266601. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.266601

    2017 doi

  77. [86]

    Many-body localization dynamics from gauge invariance,

    M. Brenes, M. Dalmonte, M. Heyl, and A. Scardicchio, “Many-body localization dynamics from gauge invariance,” Phys. Rev. Lett.120(Jan, 2018) 030601. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.030601

    2018 doi

  78. [87]

    U(1) wilson lattice gauge theories in digital quantum simulators,

    C. Muschik, M. Heyl, E. Martinez, T. Monz, P. Schindler, B. Vogell, M. Dalmonte, P. Hauke, R. Blatt, and P. Zoller, “U(1) wilson lattice gauge theories in digital quantum simulators,” New J. Phys.19no. 10, (Oct, 2017) 103020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/aa89ab

    2017 doi

  79. [88]

    efficient qudit circuit for quench dynamics of 2 + 1d quantum link electrodynamics

    Joshi et al., “efficient qudit circuit for quench dynamics of 2 + 1d quantum link electrodynamics” (in preparation, 2025)

    2025

  80. [89]

    Simulating lattice gauge theories on a quantum computer,

    T. Byrnes and Y. Yamamoto, “Simulating lattice gauge theories on a quantum computer,” Phys. Rev. A73(2006) 022328,arXiv:quant-ph/0510027

    2006 arXiv

  81. [90]

    SU(2) non-Abelian gauge field theory in one dimension on digital quantum computers,

    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. D101(Apr, 2020) 074512.https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.074512

    2020 doi

  82. [91]

    Loop, string, and hadron dynamics in su(2) hamiltonian lattice gauge theories,

    I. Raychowdhury and J. R. Stryker, “Loop, string, and hadron dynamics in su(2) hamiltonian lattice gauge theories,” Phys. Rev. D101(Jun, 2020) 114502. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.114502

    2020 doi

  83. [92]

    Spin Exchange-Enabled Quantum Simulator for Large-Scale Non-Abelian Gauge Theories,

    J. C. Halimeh, L. Homeier, A. Bohrdt, and F. Grusdt, “Spin Exchange-Enabled Quantum Simulator for Large-Scale Non-Abelian Gauge Theories,” PRX Quantum 5no. 3, (2024) 030358,arXiv:2305.06373 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2024 arXiv

  84. [93]

    Scalable, ab initio protocol for quantum simulating SU(N)×u(1) Lattice Gauge Theories,

    F. M. Surace, P. Fromholz, F. Scazza, and M. Dalmonte, “Scalable, ab initio protocol for quantum simulating SU(N)×u(1) Lattice Gauge Theories,” Quantum8 (May, 2024) 1359.https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2024-05-23-1359. 36

    2024 doi

  85. [94]

    An efficient finite-resource formulation of non-Abelian lattice gauge theories beyond one dimension,

    P. Fontana, M. M. Riaza, and A. Celi, “An efficient finite-resource formulation of non-Abelian lattice gauge theories beyond one dimension,”arXiv:2409.04441 [quant-ph]

  86. [95]

    Improved honeycomb and hyper-honeycomb lattice hamiltonians for quantum simulations of non-abelian gauge theories,

    M. Illa, M. J. Savage, and X. Yao, “Improved honeycomb and hyper-honeycomb lattice hamiltonians for quantum simulations of non-abelian gauge theories,” arXiv:2503.09688 [hep-lat].https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.09688

    arXiv

  87. [96]

    Quantum simulation of fermionic non-abelian lattice gauge theories in (2 + 1)d with built-in gauge protection,

    G. D. Paciani, L. Homeier, J. C. Halimeh, M. Aidelsburger, and F. Grusdt, “Quantum simulation of fermionic non-abelian lattice gauge theories in (2 + 1)d with built-in gauge protection,”arXiv:2506.14747 [cond-mat.quant-gas]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.14747

    arXiv

  88. [97]

    Exponential improvement in quantum simulations of bosons,

    M. Hanada, S. Matsuura, E. Mendicelli, and E. Rinaldi, “Exponential improvement in quantum simulations of bosons,”arXiv:2505.02553 [quant-ph]

  89. [98]

    Exponential speedup in quantum simulation of kogut-susskind hamiltonian via orbifold lattice,

    G. Bergner and M. Hanada, “Exponential speedup in quantum simulation of kogut-susskind hamiltonian via orbifold lattice,”arXiv:2506.00755 [quant-ph]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.00755

    arXiv

  90. [99]

    Quantum simulation of gauge theory via orbifold lattice,

    A. J. Buser, H. Gharibyan, M. Hanada, M. Honda, and J. Liu, “Quantum simulation of gauge theory via orbifold lattice,” JHEP09(2021) 034, arXiv:2011.06576 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  91. [100]

    Toward QCD on quantum computer: orbifold lattice approach,

    G. Bergner, M. Hanada, E. Rinaldi, and A. Schafer, “Toward QCD on quantum computer: orbifold lattice approach,” JHEP05(2024) 234,arXiv:2401.12045 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  92. [101]

    Supersymmetry on a spatial lattice,

    D. B. Kaplan, E. Katz, and M. ¨Unsal, “Supersymmetry on a spatial lattice,” JHEP 05(2003) 037,arXiv:hep-lat/0206019

    2003 arXiv

  93. [102]

    Exponential Improvements in the Simulation of Lattice Gauge Theories Using Near-Optimal Techniques,

    M. L. Rhodes, M. Kreshchuk, and S. Pathak, “Exponential Improvements in the Simulation of Lattice Gauge Theories Using Near-Optimal Techniques,” PRX Quantum5no. 4, (2024) 040347,arXiv:2405.10416 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  94. [103]

    Bosonic vs. fermionic matter in quantum simulations of 2 + 1d gauge theories,

    N. S. Srivatsa, J. J. Osborne, D. Banerjee, and J. C. Halimeh, “Bosonic vs. fermionic matter in quantum simulations of 2 + 1d gauge theories,” arXiv:2504.17000 [cond-mat.str-el].https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.17000

    arXiv

  95. [104]

    Estimating truncation effects of quantum bosonic systems using sampling algorithms,

    M. Hanada, J. Liu, E. Rinaldi, and M. Tezuka, “Estimating truncation effects of quantum bosonic systems using sampling algorithms,” Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech.4 no. 4, (2023) 045021,arXiv:2212.08546 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  96. [105]

    An approximate Fourier transform useful in quantum factoring,

    D. Coppersmith, “An approximate Fourier transform useful in quantum factoring,” arXiv:quant-ph/0201067. 37

    arXiv

  97. [106]

    Early fault-tolerant simulations of the Hubbard model,

    E. T. Campbell, “Early fault-tolerant simulations of the Hubbard model,” Quantum Sci. Technol.7no. 1, (2022) 015007,arXiv:2012.09238 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  98. [107]

    ¨Uber das Paulische ¨Aquivalenzverbot,

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner, “ ¨Uber das Paulische ¨Aquivalenzverbot,” Zeitschrift fur Physik47no. 9-10, (Sept., 1928) 631–651

    1928

  99. [108]

    Fermionic Quantum Computation,

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, “Fermionic Quantum Computation,” Annals of Physics298no. 1, (May, 2002) 210–226,arXiv:quant-ph/0003137 [quant-ph]

    2002 arXiv

  100. [109]

    Bosonization in three spatial dimensions and a 2-form gauge theory,

    Y.-A. Chen and A. Kapustin, “Bosonization in three spatial dimensions and a 2-form gauge theory,” Phys. Rev. B100(Dec, 2019) 245127. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.100.245127

    2019 doi

  101. [111]

    Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond,

    A. Kitaev, “Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond,” Annals of Physics321 no. 1, (Jan., 2006) 2–111,arXiv:cond-mat/0506438 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2006 arXiv

  102. [112]

    Local spin operators for fermion simulations,

    J. D. Whitfield, V. Havl´ ıˇ cek, and M. Troyer, “Local spin operators for fermion simulations,” Physical Review A94no. 3, (Sept., 2016) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.94.030301

    2016 doi

  103. [113]

    Majorana Loop Stabilizer Codes for Error Mitigation in Fermionic Quantum Simulations,

    Z. Jiang, J. McClean, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, “Majorana Loop Stabilizer Codes for Error Mitigation in Fermionic Quantum Simulations,” Physical Review Applied 12no. 6, (Dec., 2019) 064041,arXiv:1812.08190 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  104. [114]

    Superfast encodings for fermionic quantum simulation,

    K. Setia, S. Bravyi, A. Mezzacapo, and J. D. Whitfield, “Superfast encodings for fermionic quantum simulation,” Physical Review Research1no. 3, (Oct., 2019) 033033,arXiv:1810.05274 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  105. [115]

    Bosonization based on Clifford algebras and its gauge theoretic interpretation,

    A. Bochniak and B. Ruba, “Bosonization based on Clifford algebras and its gauge theoretic interpretation,” Journal of High Energy Physics2020no. 12, (Dec., 2020) 118,arXiv:2003.06905 [math-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  106. [116]

    Compact fermion to qubit mappings,

    C. Derby, J. Klassen, J. Bausch, and T. Cubitt, “Compact fermion to qubit mappings,” Physical Review B104no. 3, (July, 2021) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.104.035118

    2021 doi

  107. [117]

    Symmetric Jordan-Wigner transformation in higher dimensions,

    H. C. Po, “Symmetric Jordan-Wigner transformation in higher dimensions,” arXiv e-prints (July, 2021) arXiv:2107.10842,arXiv:2107.10842 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2021 arXiv

  108. [118]

    Bosonization in three spatial dimensions and a 2-form gauge theory,

    Y.-A. Chen and A. Kapustin, “Bosonization in three spatial dimensions and a 2-form gauge theory,” Phys. Rev. B100no. 24, (2019) 245127,arXiv:1807.07081 [cond-mat.str-el]. 38

    2019 arXiv

  109. [119]

    Exact bosonization in arbitrary dimensions,

    Y.-A. Chen, “Exact bosonization in arbitrary dimensions,” Physical Review Research2no. 3, (Sept., 2020) 033527,arXiv:1911.00017 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2020 arXiv

  110. [120]

    Equivalence between Fermion-to-Qubit Mappings in two Spatial Dimensions,

    Y.-A. Chen and Y. Xu, “Equivalence between Fermion-to-Qubit Mappings in two Spatial Dimensions,” PRX Quantum4no. 1, (2023) 010326,arXiv:2201.05153 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  111. [121]

    Mapping local Hamiltonians of fermions to local Hamiltonians of spins,

    F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, “Mapping local Hamiltonians of fermions to local Hamiltonians of spins,” J. Stat. Mech.0509(2005) P09012, arXiv:cond-mat/0508353

    2005 arXiv

  112. [122]

    Majorana-based fermionic quantum computation,

    T. E. O’Brien, P. Ro˙ zek, and A. R. Akhmerov, “Majorana-based fermionic quantum computation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.120(Jun, 2018) 220504. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.220504

    2018 doi

  113. [123]

    Fermionic quantum processing with programmable neutral atom arrays,

    D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, R. Kaubruegger, N. Maskara, P. Naldesi, T. V. Zache, A. M. Kaufman, M. D. Lukin, H. Pichler, B. Vermersch, J. Ye, and P. Zoller, “Fermionic quantum processing with programmable neutral atom arrays,” Proceedings of the National...

  114. [124]

    Fermionic quantum computation with Cooper pair splitters,

    K. Vilkelis, A. L. R. Manesco, J. D. Torres Luna, S. Miles, M. Wimmer, and A. R. Akhmerov, “Fermionic quantum computation with Cooper pair splitters,” SciPost Physics16no. 5, (May, 2024) 135,arXiv:2309.00447 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2024 arXiv

  115. [125]

    Accelerating dynamical fermion computations using the rational hybrid Monte Carlo (RHMC) algorithm with multiple pseudofermion fields,

    M. A. Clark and A. D. Kennedy, “Accelerating dynamical fermion computations using the rational hybrid Monte Carlo (RHMC) algorithm with multiple pseudofermion fields,” Phys. Rev. Lett.98(2007) 051601,arXiv:hep-lat/0608015

    2007 arXiv

  116. [126]

    Hanada and S

    M. Hanada and S. Matsuura, MCMC from scratch: A practical introduction to Markov chain Monte Carlo. Springer Nature, 2022

    2022

  117. [127]

    Monte Carlo studies of supersymmetric matrix quantum mechanics with sixteen supercharges at finite temperature,

    K. N. Anagnostopoulos, M. Hanada, J. Nishimura, and S. Takeuchi, “Monte Carlo studies of supersymmetric matrix quantum mechanics with sixteen supercharges at finite temperature,” Phys. Rev. Lett.100(2008) 021601,arXiv:0707.4454 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  118. [128]

    Towards lattice simulation of the gauge theory duals to black holes and hot strings,

    S. Catterall and T. Wiseman, “Towards lattice simulation of the gauge theory duals to black holes and hot strings,” JHEP12(2007) 104,arXiv:0706.3518 [hep-lat]

    2007 arXiv

  119. [129]

    Toward simulating superstring/M-theory on a quantum computer,

    H. Gharibyan, M. Hanada, M. Honda, and J. Liu, “Toward simulating superstring/M-theory on a quantum computer,” JHEP07(2021) 140, arXiv:2011.06573 [hep-th]. 39

    2021 arXiv

  120. [130]

    N=4 Super Yang-Mills from the Plane Wave Matrix Model,

    T. Ishii, G. Ishiki, S. Shimasaki, and A. Tsuchiya, “N=4 Super Yang-Mills from the Plane Wave Matrix Model,” Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 106001,arXiv:0807.2352 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  121. [131]

    Two-dimensional lattice for four-dimensional N=4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills,

    M. Hanada, S. Matsuura, and F. Sugino, “Two-dimensional lattice for four-dimensional N=4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills,” Prog. Theor. Phys.126(2011) 597–611,arXiv:1004.5513 [hep-lat]

    2011 arXiv

  122. [132]

    A proposal of a fine tuning free formulation of 4d N = 4 super Yang-Mills,

    M. Hanada, “A proposal of a fine tuning free formulation of 4d N = 4 super Yang-Mills,” JHEP11(2010) 112,arXiv:1009.0901 [hep-lat]. 40

    2010 arXiv

  123. [2018]

    032331.https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.032331

    doi

  124. [2022]

    040316.https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.040316. 29

    doi

  125. [2023]

    e2304294120,arXiv:2303.06985 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

Pith tools

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