Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Efficient Qudit Circuit for Quench Dynamics of $2+1$D Quantum Link Electrodynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By integrating out matter fields through Gauss's law, this paper rewrites the 2+1D quantum link model as a pure spin Hamiltonian whose qudit circuits need no ancilla qubits, reducing per-term entangling gates to 22 and per-plaquette gates…

desk verdict Solid, incremental qudit-circuit paper for 2+1D QLMs; the central coupling circuit passes scrutiny, and the resource claims would be stronger with a quantitative qubit baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12589 v1 pith:AXXXVH3S submitted 2025-07-16 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gashep-lat

Rohan Joshi , Michael Meth , Jan C. Louw , Jesse J. Osborne , Kevin Mato , Martin Ringbauer , Jad C. Halimeh This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gashep-lat MSC 81P6881T25 PACS 03.67.Ac11.15.Ha
keywords quantumlinkmodellatticegaugetheoryquditcomputingdigitalsimulationGauss'slawTrotterizationquenchdynamics2+1DQED
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 aims to make digital quantum simulation of 2+1D U(1) lattice gauge theories with dynamical matter practical on near-term qudit hardware. It rewrites the quantum link model by eliminating the matter fields analytically through Gauss's law, leaving a spin-only Hamiltonian in which matter-mediated couplings become spin flips on links, conditioned on projectors acting on neighboring links. This matter-integrated-out form is implemented with qudit circuits that use the extra levels of each qudit as scratch space, so no ancillary qubits are needed. For spin-1/2 the paper gives explicit circuits with 22 entangling gates per coupling term and 38 per plaquette per Trotter step, and numerical simulations show first-order Trotterized evolution reproducing exact quench dynamics even under two realistic noise models. The same projector-verification construction is extended to higher spins, with an explicit spin-1 coupling circuit of 56 entangling gates.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the matter-integrated-out Hamiltonian (Eq. 6), in which the original matter-exchange term becomes $\sum \hat{P}^m_r \hat{\sigma}^{x;-m,-m-1}_{r,e_\nu} \hat{P}^m_{r+e_\nu}$: a Pauli flip on the shared link whose action is allowed only when the sums of $s^z$ on the surrounding links satisfy the two projector conditions. The circuit realization rests on the identity $e^{-i\theta \hat{P} \hat{\sigma}^x \hat{P}} = 1 - \hat{I}' + \hat{P} H e^{-i2\theta s^z} H \hat{P}$, which turns the conditional flip into a Hadamard-rotation-Hadamard sandwich gated by projector-verification subcircuits. Those subcircuits use extra qudit levels as ancilla-free scratch space: a carefully chosen mapping sends the three allowed three-link states to states whose third qudit is $|1\rangle$, so a single controlled-X per configuration can flag success. The plaquette circuit analogously flags the two states $|0101\rangle$ and $|1010\rangle$ by mapping them to $|3232\rangle$ and $|2323\rangle$ and then applies the four-body $XXXX$ rotation via Mølmer–Sørensen and $R_z$ gates.

What would settle it

Run the proposed spin-1/2 Trotter circuits on a qudit processor with independently measured gate fidelities and compare the measured magnetization $M(t)$ and local $\langle\hat{s}^z_{r,e_\nu}\rangle$ values to the noiseless exact curves; if agreement degrades significantly within the first few oscillations at the Noise Model 2 error rates, the near-term viability claim is falsified. A direct resource comparison showing a qubit-based implementation achieving equal fidelity with fewer or equal entangling gates would also falsify the claimed advantage.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the resource bottleneck of simulating 2+1D spin-1/2 U(1) quantum link electrodynamics with dynamical matter can be removed by using Gauss's law to integrate out the matter fields, yielding a pure gauge Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{\mathrm{MIO}}$ in which each matter-mediated coupling becomes a spin flip on a link conditioned on projectors $\hat{P}_r$ and $\hat{P}_{r+e_\nu}$ acting on the three neighboring links. Because these projectors only need to recognize a few three-link configurations, the paper implements them by mapping those few states into higher qudit levels; for spin-1/2, the eight three-link states are embedded in four-level qudits so that the successful states all have the third qudit in $|1\rangle$. This reduces the coupling term to 22 entangling gates and four single-qudit gates per Trotter step, and the plaquette term to 38 entangling gates, with no ancillary qubits. The authors verify numerically on 4x4 lattices (without plaquette terms) and 3x3 lattices (with plaquette terms) that first-order Trotterized evolution matches exact quench dynamics, and that under dephasing and depolarizing noise the magnetization oscillations and local electric-field snapshots remain qualitatively intact for several oscillation periods. The same projector-verification construction generalizes to higher spins, with an explicit spin-1 coupling circuit using 56 gates and qudits of dimension up to 7.

Load-bearing premise

The near-term viability claim rests on hardware reaching error rates of $3\times10^{-6}$ per single-qudit gate and $10^{-4}$ to $2\times10^{-4}$ per entangling gate, which the paper itself notes are still better than current state of the art.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the construction is correct, 2+1D quantum link model quench dynamics can be simulated without ancilla qubits, with a per-Trotter-step cost of 22 entangling gates per coupling term and 38 per plaquette.
  • The same projector-verification approach gives a systematic route to higher-spin representations, demonstrated explicitly for spin-1 with a 56-gate coupling circuit.
  • The matter fields are integrated out analytically, so the number of qudits equals the number of gauge links and does not grow with matter-site Hilbert space.
  • In the tested small systems, coherent gauge-invariant dynamics persist for multiple oscillations under both noise models without error mitigation or post-selection.
  • The integration step is dimension-agnostic for bosonic matter, so the reformulation carries over to arbitrary spatial dimensions and to other gauge theories with similar local constraints.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the projector-verification trick could be reused for non-Abelian or $ℤ_N$ gauge theories whose local constraints also admit a small number of allowed configurations per vertex.
  • Beyond the paper: the noise-resilience result was demonstrated for a 3x3 lattice with plaquette terms and for 4x4 without plaquette terms; a natural next test is a larger lattice with both coupling and plaquette terms active to see whether the fidelity window persists at greater circuit depth.
  • Beyond the paper: the claimed advantage over qubit encodings is a gate-count and resource-count comparison; an end-to-end comparison on hardware would depend on whether four-level qudit entangling gates have comparable physical fidelity to two-level gates on the same platform.
  • Beyond the paper: if hardware error rates remain at current state of the art rather than reaching the paper's assumed Noise Model 2 rates of $p_{1q}=3\times10^{-6}$, $p_{CX}=2\times10^{-4}$, and $p_{MS}=1\times10^{-4}$, the practical number of resolvable oscillations would shrink accordingly.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a matter-integrated-out (MIO) reformulation of 2+1D U(1) quantum link models with spin-S gauge fields, in which the matter fields are eliminated via Gauss's law and the remaining gauge degrees of freedom are encoded in qudits. For the spin-1/2 case, explicit circuits are constructed for the coupling and plaquette terms, with reported counts of 22 and 38 entangling gates per Trotter step, respectively. The circuits are benchmarked through first-order Trotterized quench dynamics against exact diagonalization on 3x3 and 4x4 lattices under two noise models. A spin-1 coupling circuit is also presented as a first step toward a general higher-spin construction. The central claims are resource efficiency relative to qubit encodings and near-term viability on qudit platforms.

Significance. The MIO formulation is dimension-independent and is a natural fit for qudit architectures. The analytical identities in Eqs. (12) and (15) are correct, and the noiseless Trotterized simulations match exact evolution on the tested systems, which validates the spin-1/2 circuit construction in those sectors. The circuit-level noise simulations at the stated error rates are a useful step toward assessing practical implementability. However, the paper's central resource-efficiency claim lacks any quantitative qubit baseline, and the higher-spin section contains a notable inconsistency between its analytical derivation and the proposed circuit. If these issues are addressed, the work would be a solid contribution to qudit-based simulation of lattice gauge theories.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V, Eqs. (19)-(20)] The projector assignments in Eqs. (19) and (20) are inconsistent with the circuit and mapping tables. As written, Eq. (19) states that (P^0_r σ^{x;12} P^0_{r+eν})^2 = I' and (P^1_r σ^{x;01} P^1_{r+eν})^2 = I'', and Eq. (20) pairs P^0 with σ^{x;12} and P^1 with σ^{x;01}. With the encoding |0> ↔ s_z=-1, |1> ↔ s_z=0, |2> ↔ s_z=1, Gauss's law implies that the transition |2> ↔ |1> (σ^{x;12}) requires the three-link sum s_3 = -1, i.e., projector P^{-1}, while the transition |1> ↔ |0> (σ^{x;01}) requires s_3 = 0, i.e., projector P^0. The mapping tables (Table II for P^0, Table III for P^{-1}) and the target transitions in Fig. 8(c) consistently use this correct assignment. Thus Eqs. (19)-(20) contain a systematic error and should be corrected to involve P^0 with σ^{x;01} and P^{-1} with σ^{x;12}. As written, the analytical derivation does not support the spin-1 circuit.
  2. [Sec. VI and Abstract] The central resource-efficiency claim is not substantiated. The abstract and Sec. VI state that the framework 'significantly reduces the number of quantum resources and gate count' compared to conventional qubit encodings, but the paper reports only the absolute qudit gate counts (22 entangling gates per coupling term, 38 per plaquette) without presenting or citing a concrete qubit circuit for the same Hamiltonian, same system size, and same Trotter order. Without a quantitative baseline, the 'significant advantage' claim is unsupported. I recommend adding a comparison table for a representative system (e.g., the 3x3 lattice) listing qubit count, entangling-gate count, and circuit depth for both the qudit and qubit approaches.
  3. [Sec. IV, Noise Model 2] The near-term viability claim relies on error rates that the authors themselves state are 'still better than the current state of the art.' This is in tension with the abstract's 'readily amenable to implementation on state-of-the-art qudit platforms' and Sec. VI's 'experimentally achievable error rates.' Please either include simulations at current hardware error rates (ideally citing rates from the qudit QLM experiment in Ref. [123]) or temper the near-term phrasing in the abstract and conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3(b)] I checked the controlled-phase sequence in Fig. 3(b). With the R_z convention of Eq. (10), the sequence Rz^{2,3}(θ/2), CX_{1,2↔3}, Rz^{2,3}(−θ/2), CX_{1,2↔3} composes to Rz^{2,3}(θ) when the control is in |1>, so the coupling circuit does not have a factor-of-two error.
  2. [Eq. (11)] The virtual phase gate is written as VR^a_z(θ) = e^{-iφ|a><a|}; the argument on the left is θ while the right-hand side uses φ. Please align the notation.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (4)] The symbol m^+ appears in Eq. (4) and is not defined. I assume it is a placeholder for the staggered charge, but it should be explicitly introduced.
  4. [Sec. V] The text claims a 'general approach for constructing coupling term circuits for higher spins,' but only the S=1 case is worked out explicitly. The scaling and the explicit algorithm for S>1 are not given. Please either provide the general recipe or temper the wording to 'a construction for S=1 that indicates a path to higher spins.'
  5. [Sec. IV A] The 4x4 simulations exclude plaquette terms, so the noiseless validation there tests only the coupling circuit; the plaquette circuit is validated only on the 3x3 system. This limitation is stated in the text, but it should also be reflected in the abstract's claim of simulating the 'full Hamiltonian' in the numerical benchmarks.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the circuit construction is analytic and the Trotterized dynamics are benchmarked against exact diagonalization.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The matter-integrated-out Hamiltonian (6) is obtained from Eq. (1) via Gauss's law with projectors defined in Eq. (5); this is an algebraic rewriting, not a fit. The circuit for the coupling term, Eq. (12), uses the standard identity e^{-iθσ^x}=H e^{-i2θs^z}H and a CX-sandwich controlled rotation, and the resource counts (22 entangling gates per coupling term, 38 per plaquette) follow from counting the drawn circuits. The numerical claims are benchmarked against exact diagonalization of the same MIO Hamiltonian, an independent check of the circuit decomposition; no parameter is fitted to the data. Noise Models 1 and 2 are explicitly stated assumptions with quoted error rates, and the paper notes Noise Model 2 is 'still better than the current state of the art' rather than deriving it; this is a near-term-viability assumption, not a circular step. Self-citations to Refs. [123,124] are to prior qudit hardware experiments by overlapping authors, used as context and hardware-feasibility evidence; they are externally falsifiable experiments and are not load-bearing for the algebraic circuit construction. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the encoding choice, and the state mapping in Table I is explicitly constructed and verified by simulation. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central circuit construction is self-contained and validated by exact-diagonalization benchmarks, so free parameters are limited to the assumed hardware noise rates and the Hamiltonian couplings chosen for the numerical example. The main axioms are the standard quantum-link-model Gauss law and hardcore-boson constraint, plus the assumption that the required multi-level entangling gates can be implemented with the assumed fidelities. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Noise Model 1 error rates = p_1q=3e-7, p_CX=2e-5, p_MS=1e-5
    Hand-chosen as optimistic but allegedly current/near-term values for a trapped-ion qudit platform; not measured on a specific device.
  • Noise Model 2 error rates = p_1q=3e-6, p_CX=2e-4, p_MS=1e-4
    An order of magnitude larger than Model 1, but the authors state this is still better than current state of the art; load-bearing for the near-term-viability claim.
  • Hamiltonian couplings for simulations = m=0.42, kappa=1, J=0 (4x4); m=0.42, kappa=1, J=0.5 (3x3)
    Chosen for the numerical examples; not fitted to experimental data and not load-bearing for the circuit construction itself.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Gauss's law sector and hardcore-boson constraint (Eqs. 2-3)
    The MIO projection relies on restricting to gauge-invariant states with at most one boson per site.
  • domain assumption Projector condition sums on three-link sets (Eqs. 4, 8)
    The coupling-term circuits implement projectors onto configurations where the three neighboring links sum to -1/2; this is derived from Gauss's law but assumes the sign convention and particle-hole transform.
  • standard math First-order Suzuki-Trotter decomposition (Eq. 9)
    The paper assumes the chosen Trotter step sizes dtheta=0.01pi and 0.05pi give acceptable Trotter error for the simulated observables.
  • domain assumption Availability of qudit gates (CX, MS, virtual Rz) with assumed fidelities
    The numerical noise models assume specific error rates for these gates, which are better than current hardware.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient Qudit Circuit for Quench Dynamics of $2+1$D Quantum Link Electrodynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AXXXVH3S

@misc{pith2026250712589,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient Qudit Circuit for Quench Dynamics of $2+1$D Quantum Link Electrodynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AXXXVH3S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12589}
}
abstract

A major challenge in the burgeoning field of quantum simulation for high-energy physics is the realization of scalable $2+1$D lattice gauge theories on state-of-the-art quantum hardware, which is an essential step towards the overarching goal of probing $3+1$D quantum chromodynamics on a quantum computer. Despite great progress, current experimental implementations of $2+1$D lattice gauge theories are mostly restricted to relatively small system sizes and two-level representations of the gauge and electric fields. Here, we propose a resource-efficient method for quantum simulating $2+1$D spin-$S$ $\mathrm{U}(1)$ quantum link lattice gauge theories with dynamical matter using qudit-based quantum processors. By integrating out the matter fields through Gauss's law, we reformulate the quantum link model in a purely spin picture compatible with qudit encoding across arbitrary spatial dimensions, eliminating the need for ancillary qubits and reducing resource overhead. Focusing first on the spin-$1/2$ case, we construct explicit circuits for the full Hamiltonian and demonstrate through numerical simulations that the first-order Trotterized circuits accurately capture the quench dynamics even in the presence of realistic noise levels. Additionally, we introduce a general method for constructing coupling-term circuits for higher-spin representations $S>1/2$. Compared to conventional qubit encodings, our framework significantly reduces the number of quantum resources and gate count. Our approach significantly enhances scalability and fidelity for probing nonequilibrium phenomena in higher-dimensional lattice gauge theories, and is readily amenable to implementation on state-of-the-art qudit platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12589 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) 2D lattice illustrating interactions in both original and matter-integrated-out (MIO) formulations, (b) configurations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Depiction of two neighboring vertices on the square [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) and (b) depict the subcircuits P [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) shows the subcircuit P [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Dynamics of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a), and noisy simulations preserving key features across both noise models, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Dynamics of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (a) The projector verification circuit P maps neighboring qudits according to the configurations specified in Tables [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 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. Fault-Tolerant Resource Comparison of Qudit and Qubit Encodings for Diagonal Quadratic Operators

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper derives explicit finite-d break-even synthesis costs for qudit vs. qubit encodings of diagonal quadratic operators in product-formula and LCU simulations, identifying low-d regions where qudits yield savings.

  3. 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

139 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [123]

    M. Meth, J. Zhang, J. F. Haase, C. Edmunds, L. Postler, A. J. Jena, A. Steiner, L. Dellantonio, R. Blatt, P. Zoller, T. Monz, P. Schindler, C. Muschik, and M. Ringbauer, Simulating two-dimensional lattice gauge theories on a qudit quantum computer, Nature Physics 21, 570 (2025)

    2025

  2. [1]

    Kogut and L

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

    1975

  3. [2]

    Rothe, Lattice Gauge Theories: An Introduction , EBSCO ebook academic collection (World Scientific, 2005)

    H. Rothe, Lattice Gauge Theories: An Introduction , EBSCO ebook academic collection (World Scientific, 2005)

    2005

  4. [3]

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

    1974

  5. [4]

    Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields , Vol

    S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields , Vol. 2: Modern Applications (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

    1995

  6. [5]

    Zee, Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell (Princeton University Press, 2003)

    A. Zee, Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell (Princeton University Press, 2003)

    2003

  7. [6]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, An Introduction To Quantum Field Theory (CRC Press, 2018)

    2018

  8. [7]

    Creutz, Monte carlo study of quantized su(2) gauge theory, Phys

    M. Creutz, Monte carlo study of quantized su(2) gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D 21, 2308 (1980)

    1980

Show all 139 references
  1. [8]

    Gross, E

    F. Gross, E. Klempt, S. J. Brodsky, A. J. Buras, V. D. Burkert, G. Heinrich, K. Jakobs, C. A. Meyer, K. Orginos, M. Strickland, J. Stachel, G. Zanderighi, N. Brambilla, P. Braun-Munzinger, D. Britzger, S. Cap- stick, T. Cohen, V. Crede, M. Constantinou, C. Davies, L. Del Debbi...

    2023

  2. [9]

    Gattringer and C

    C. Gattringer and C. Lang, Quantum Chromodynamics on the Lattice: An Introductory Presentation , Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009)

    2009

  3. [10]

    Montvay and G

    I. Montvay and G. M¨ unster,Quantum Fields on a Lat- tice, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1994)

    1994

  4. [11]

    F. J. Wegner, Duality in generalized ising models and phase transitions without local order pa- rameters, Journal of Mathematical Physics 12, 2259 (1971), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article- pdf/12/10/2259/19106483/2259 1 online.pdf

    1971

  5. [12]

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

    1979

  6. [13]

    X. Wen, Quantum Field Theory of Many-Body Sys- tems:From the Origin of Sound to an Origin of Light and Electrons: From the Origin of Sound to an Origin of Light and Electrons , Oxford Graduate Texts (OUP Oxford, 2004)

    2004

  7. [14]

    Savary and L

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

    2016

  8. [15]

    Calzetta and B

    E. Calzetta and B. Hu, Nonequilibrium Quantum Field Theory , Cambridge Monographs on Mathemat- ical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2008)

    2008

  9. [16]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Ann

    U. Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Ann. Phys. 326, 96 (2011)

    2011

  10. [17]

    Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Ma- trix product states and projected entangled pair states, Annals of Physics 349, 117 (2014)

    R. Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Ma- trix product states and projected entangled pair states, Annals of Physics 349, 117 (2014)

    2014

  11. [18]

    Paeckel, T

    S. Paeckel, T. K¨ ohler, A. Swoboda, S. R. Manmana, U. Schollw¨ ock, and C. Hubig, Time-evolution meth- 15 ods for matrix-product states, Ann. Phys. 411, 167998 (2019)

    2019

  12. [19]

    Or´ us, Tensor networks for complex quantum systems, Nat

    R. Or´ us, Tensor networks for complex quantum systems, Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 538 (2019)

    2019

  13. [20]

    Montangero, Introduction to Tensor Network Meth- ods: Numerical simulations of low-dimensional many- body quantum systems (Springer International Publish- ing, 2018)

    S. Montangero, Introduction to Tensor Network Meth- ods: Numerical simulations of low-dimensional many- body quantum systems (Springer International Publish- ing, 2018)

    2018

  14. [21]

    A. W. Sandvik, Computational studies of quan- tum spin systems, AIP Conference Proceedings 1297, 135 (2010), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article- pdf/1297/1/135/11407753/135 1 online.pdf

    2010

  15. [22]

    F. M. Surace, P. P. Mazza, G. Giudici, A. Lerose, A. Gambassi, and M. Dalmonte, Lattice gauge theo- ries and string dynamics in Rydberg atom quantum simulators, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021041 (2020)

    2020

  16. [23]

    Desaules, D

    J.-Y. Desaules, D. Banerjee, A. Hudomal, Z. Papi´ c, A. Sen, and J. C. Halimeh, Weak ergodicity breaking in the schwinger model, Phys. Rev. B 107, L201105 (2023)

    2023

  17. [24]

    Desaules, A

    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. B 107, 205112 (2023)

    2023

  18. [25]

    A. S. Aramthottil, U. Bhattacharya, D. Gonz´ alez- Cuadra, M. Lewenstein, L. Barbiero, and J. Zakrzewski, Scar states in deconfined z2 lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. B 106, L041101 (2022)

    2022

  19. [26]

    Smith, J

    A. Smith, J. Knolle, D. L. Kovrizhin, and R. Moessner, Disorder-free localization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 266601 (2017)

    2017

  20. [27]

    Brenes, M

    M. Brenes, M. Dalmonte, M. Heyl, and A. Scardicchio, Many-body localization dynamics from gauge invariance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 030601 (2018)

    2018

  21. [28]

    Smith, J

    A. Smith, J. Knolle, R. Moessner, and D. L. Kovrizhin, Absence of ergodicity without quenched disorder: From quantum disentangled liquids to many-body localization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 176601 (2017)

    2017

  22. [29]

    Karpov, R

    P. Karpov, R. Verdel, Y.-P. Huang, M. Schmitt, and M. Heyl, Disorder-free localization in an interacting 2D lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 130401 (2021)

    2021

  23. [30]

    J. Sous, B. Kloss, D. M. Kennes, D. R. Reichman, and A. J. Millis, Phonon-induced disorder in dynamics of optically pumped metals from nonlinear electron-phonon coupling, Nat. Commun. 12, 5803 (2021)

    2021

  24. [31]

    Chakraborty, M

    N. Chakraborty, M. Heyl, P. Karpov, and R. Moess- ner, Disorder-free localization transition in a two- dimensional lattice gauge theory, arXiv preprint (2022), arXiv:2203.06198 [cond-mat.dis-nn]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [32]

    J. C. Halimeh, L. Homeier, H. Zhao, A. Bohrdt, F. Grusdt, P. Hauke, and J. Knolle, Enhancing disorder- free localization through dynamically emergent local symmetries (2021), arXiv:2111.08715 [cond-mat.quant- gas]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [33]

    P. S. Tarabunga, E. Tirrito, T. Chanda, and M. Dal- monte, Many-body magic via pauli-markov chains—from criticality to gauge theories, PRX Quantum 4, 040317 (2023)

    2023

  27. [34]

    Hartse, L

    J. Hartse, L. Fidkowski, and N. Mueller, Stabilizer scars (2024), arXiv:2411.12797 [quant-ph]

    2024

  28. [35]

    Smith, Z

    R. Smith, Z. Papi´ c, and A. Hallam, Nonstabilizerness in kinetically constrained rydberg atom arrays, Phys. Rev. B 111, 245148 (2025)

    2025

  29. [36]

    P. R. N. Falc˜ ao, P. S. Tarabunga, M. Frau, E. Tirrito, J. Zakrzewski, and M. Dalmonte, Nonstabilizerness in u(1) lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. B 111, L081102 (2025)

    2025

  30. [37]

    Esposito, S

    G. Esposito, S. Cepollaro, L. Cappiello, and A. Hamma, Magic of discrete lattice gauge the- ories, International Journal of Geometric Meth- ods in Modern Physics 22, 2550003 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887825500033

    2025 doi

  31. [38]

    Desaules, G.-X

    J.-Y. Desaules, G.-X. Su, I. P. McCulloch, B. Yang, Z. Papi´ c, and J. C. Halimeh, Ergodicity Breaking Un- der Confinement in Cold-Atom Quantum Simulators, Quantum 8, 1274 (2024)

    2024

  32. [39]

    Desaules, T

    J.-Y. Desaules, T. Iadecola, and J. C. Halimeh, Mass- assisted local deconfinement in a confinedz2 lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. B 112, 014301 (2025)

    2025

  33. [40]

    Jeyaretnam, T

    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 model, Communications Physics 8, 10.1038/s42005-025-02039-8 (2025)

    2025 doi

  34. [41]

    A. N. Ciavarella, C. W. Bauer, and J. C. Halimeh, Generic hilbert space fragmentation in kogut–susskind lattice gauge theories (2025), arXiv:2502.03533 [quant- ph]

    2025

  35. [42]

    de Forcrand, Simulating qcd at finite density (2010), arXiv:1005.0539 [hep-lat]

    P. de Forcrand, Simulating qcd at finite density (2010), arXiv:1005.0539 [hep-lat]

    2010 arXiv

  36. [43]

    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

  37. [44]

    Carmen Ba˜ nuls and K

    M. Carmen Ba˜ nuls and K. Cichy, Review on novel meth- ods for lattice gauge theories, Reports on Progress in Physics 83, 024401 (2020)

    2020

  38. [45]

    Magnifico, G

    G. Magnifico, G. Cataldi, M. Rigobello, P. Majcen, D. Jaschke, P. Silvi, and S. Montangero, Tensor net- works for lattice gauge theories beyond one dimension: a roadmap (2024), arXiv:2407.03058 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Dalmonte and S

    M. Dalmonte and S. Montangero, Lattice gauge theory simulations in the quantum informa- tion era, Contemporary Physics 57, 388 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1080/00107514.2016.1151199

    2016

  40. [47]

    Zohar, J

    E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, Quantum simula- tions of lattice gauge theories using ultracold atoms in optical lattices, Rep. Prog. Phys. 79, 014401 (2015)

    2015

  41. [48]

    Aidelsburger, M

    M. Aidelsburger, M. Atala, S. Nascimbene, S. Trotzky, Y.-. A. Chen, and I. Bloch, Experimental realization of strong effective magnetic fields in an optical lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 255301 (2011)

    2011

  42. [49]

    Zohar, Quantum simulation of lattice gauge theories in more than one space dimension—requirements, chal- lenges and methods, Philos

    E. Zohar, Quantum simulation of lattice gauge theories in more than one space dimension—requirements, chal- lenges and methods, Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. A 380, 20210069 (2022), arXiv:2106.04609 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  43. [50]

    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 85, 064301 (2022)

    2022

  44. [51]

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

    2023

  45. [52]

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, A. B. Balantekin, T. Bhat- tacharya, M. Carena, W. A. de Jong, P. Draper, A. El-Khadra, N. Gemelke, M. Hanada, D. Kharzeev, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, J. Liu, M. Lukin, Y. Meurice, C. Monroe, B. Nachman, G. Pagano, J. Preskill, E. Ri- naldi, A. Roggero, D. I. ...

    2023

  46. [53]

    Di Meglio, K

    A. Di Meglio, K. Jansen, I. Tavernelli, C. Alexandrou, S. Arunachalam, C. W. Bauer, K. Borras, S. Carrazza, A. Crippa, V. Croft, R. de Putter, A. Delgado, V. Dun- jko, D. J. Egger, E. Fern´ andez-Combarro, E. Fuchs, L. Funcke, D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, M. Grossi, J. C. Hal- imeh, ...

    2024

  47. [54]

    Cheng and H

    Y. Cheng and H. Zhai, Emergent u(1) lattice gauge theory in rydberg atom arrays, Nature Reviews Physics 6, 566 (2024)

    2024

  48. [55]

    J. C. Halimeh, M. Aidelsburger, F. Grusdt, P. Hauke, and B. Yang, Cold-atom quantum simulators of gauge theories, Nature Physics 10.1038/s41567-024-02721-8 (2025)

    2025 doi

  49. [56]

    T. D. Cohen, H. Lamm, S. Lawrence, and Y. Yamauchi (NuQS), Quantum algorithms for transport coefficients in gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D 104, 094514 (2021), arXiv:2104.02024 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [57]

    K. Lee, F. Turro, and X. Yao, Quantum computing for energy correlators, Phys. Rev. D 111, 054514 (2025)

    2025

  51. [58]

    Turro, A

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

    2024 arXiv

  52. [59]

    C. W. Bauer, Efficient use of quantum computers for collider physics (2025), arXiv:2503.16602 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Chandrasekharan and U.-J

    S. Chandrasekharan and U.-J. Wiese, Quantum link models: A discrete approach to gauge theories, Nucl. Phys. B. 492, 455 (1997)

    1997

  54. [61]

    Wiese, Ultracold quantum gases and lattice sys- tems: quantum simulation of lattice gauge theories, An- nalen der Physik 525, 777 (2013)

    U.-J. Wiese, Ultracold quantum gases and lattice sys- tems: quantum simulation of lattice gauge theories, An- nalen der Physik 525, 777 (2013)

    2013

  55. [62]

    Kasper, F

    V. Kasper, F. Hebenstreit, F. Jendrzejewski, M. K. Oberthaler, and J. Berges, Implementing quantum elec- trodynamics with ultracold atomic systems, New J. Phys. 19, 023030 (2017)

    2017

  56. [63]

    Muschik, M

    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. 19, 103020 (2017)

    2017

  57. [64]

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

    2021 arXiv

  58. [65]

    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, Na- ture 534, 516 (2016)

    2016

  59. [66]

    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. A 98, 032331 (2018)

    2018

  60. [67]

    G¨ org, K

    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. 15, 1161 (2019)

    2019

  61. [68]

    Schweizer, F

    C. Schweizer, F. Grusdt, M. Berngruber, L. Barbiero, E. Demler, N. Goldman, I. Bloch, and M. Aidelsburger, Floquet approach to Z2 lattice gauge theories with ul- tracold atoms in optical lattices, Nat. Phys. 15, 1168 (2019)

    2019

  62. [69]

    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 invariance in cold atomic mixtures, Science 367, 1128 (2020)

    2020

  63. [70]

    B. Yang, H. Sun, R. Ott, H.-Y. Wang, T. V. Zache, J. C. Halimeh, Z.-S. Yuan, P. Hauke, and J.-W. Pan, Obser- vation of gauge invariance in a 71-site Bose–Hubbard quantum simulator, Nature 587, 392 (2020)

    2020

  64. [71]

    Wang, Z.-Y

    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 z2 gauge invariance in a su- perconducting circuit, Phys. Rev. Research 4, L022060 (2022)

    2022

  65. [72]

    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, 023010 (2023)

    2023

  66. [73]

    Zhou, G.-X

    Z.-Y. Zhou, G.-X. Su, J. C. Halimeh, R. Ott, H. Sun, P. Hauke, B. Yang, Z.-S. Yuan, J. Berges, and J.-W. Pan, Thermalization dynamics of a gauge theory on a quantum simulator, Science 377, 311 (2022)

    2022

  67. [74]

    Wang, W.-Y

    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, 050401 (2023)

    2023

  68. [75]

    Zhang, Y

    W.-Y. Zhang, Y. Liu, Y. Cheng, M.-G. He, H.-Y. Wang, T.-Y. Wang, Z.-H. Zhu, G.-X. Su, Z.-Y. Zhou, Y.-G. Zheng, H. Sun, B. Yang, P. Hauke, W. Zheng, J. C. Halimeh, Z.-S. Yuan, and J.-W. Pan, Observation of mi- croscopic confinement dynamics by a tunable topological theta-angle,...

    2024 doi

  69. [76]

    A. N. Ciavarella and C. W. Bauer, Quantum simulation of su(3) lattice yang-mills theory at leading order in large- Nc expansion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 111901 (2024)

    2024

  70. [77]

    A. N. Ciavarella, String Breaking in the Heavy Quark Limit with Scalable Circuits (2024), arXiv:2411.05915 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  71. [78]

    R. C. Farrell, M. Illa, A. N. Ciavarella, and M. J. Sav- age, Scalable Circuits for Preparing Ground States on Digital Quantum Computers: The Schwinger Model Vac- uum on 100 Qubits, PRX Quantum 5, 020315 (2024), arXiv:2308.04481 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  72. [79]

    R. C. Farrell, M. Illa, A. N. Ciavarella, and M. J. Sav- age, Quantum simulations of hadron dynamics in the Schwinger model using 112 qubits, Phys. Rev. D 109, 114510 (2024), arXiv:2401.08044 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  73. [80]

    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 (2024), arXiv:2411.12565 17 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2024 arXiv

  74. [81]

    Ciavarella, N

    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 103, 094501 (2021), arXiv:2101.10227 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  75. [82]

    A. N. Ciavarella, Quantum simulation of lattice QCD with improved Hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. D 108, 094513 (2023), arXiv:2307.05593 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  76. [83]

    A. N. Ciavarella and I. A. Chernyshev, Preparation of the SU(3) lattice Yang-Mills vacuum with variational quantum methods, Phys. Rev. D 105, 074504 (2022), arXiv:2112.09083 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  77. [84]

    E. J. Gustafson, H. Lamm, and F. Lovelace, Prim- itive quantum gates for an SU(2) discrete subgroup: Binary octahedral, Phys. Rev. D 109, 054503 (2024), arXiv:2312.10285 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  78. [85]

    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. D 110, 034515 (2024), arXiv:2405.05973 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  79. [86]

    Lamm, Y.-Y

    H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, J. Shu, Y.-L. Wang, and B. Xu, Block encodings of discrete subgroups on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. D 110, 054505 (2024), arXiv:2405.12890 [hep- lat]

    2024 arXiv

  80. [87]

    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. D 107, 054512 (2023), arXiv:2207.01731 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  81. [88]

    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-baryon β-decay in real time, Phys. Rev. D 107, 054513 (2023), arXiv:2209.10781 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  82. [89]

    Z. Li, D. M. Grabowska, and M. J. Savage, Sequency Hi- erarchy Truncation (SeqHT) for Adiabatic State Prepa- ration and Time Evolution in Quantum Simulations (2024), arXiv:2407.13835 [quant-ph]

    2024

  83. [90]

    N. A. Zemlevskiy, Scalable Quantum Simulations of Scattering in Scalar Field Theory on 120 Qubits (2024), arXiv:2411.02486 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  84. [91]

    Lewis and R

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

    2019 arXiv

  85. [92]

    A Rahman, R

    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. D 106, 074502 (2022), arXiv:2205.09247 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  86. [93]

    Y. Y. Atas, J. F. Haase, J. Zhang, V. Wei, S. M. L. Pfaendler, R. Lewis, and C. A. Muschik, Simulat- ing one-dimensional quantum chromodynamics on a quantum computer: Real-time evolutions of tetra- and pentaquarks, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033184 (2023), arXiv:2207.03473 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  87. [94]

    Mendicelli, R

    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 LA T- TICE2022, 025 (2023), arXiv:2210.11606 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  88. [95]

    A. H. Z. Kavaki and R. Lewis, From square plaquettes to triamond lattices for SU(2) gauge theory, Commun. Phys. 7, 208 (2024), arXiv:2401.14570 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  89. [96]

    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 (2024), arXiv:2501.00579 [quant-ph]

    2024

  90. [97]

    Angelides, P

    T. Angelides, P. Naredi, A. Crippa, K. Jansen, S. K¨ uhn, I. Tavernelli, and D. S. Wang, First-order phase transi- tion of the schwinger model with a quantum computer, npj Quantum Information 11, 6 (2025)

    2025

  91. [98]

    T. A. Cochran, B. Jobst, E. Rosenberg, Y. D. Lensky, G. Gyawali, N. Eassa, M. Will, A. Szasz, D. Abanin, R. Acharya, L. Aghababaie Beni, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, J. Ata- laya, R. Babbush, B. Ballard, J. C. Bardin, A. Bengts- son, A. Bilmes, A. B...

    2025

  92. [99]

    Gyawali, T

    G. Gyawali, T. Cochran, Y. Lensky, E. Rosenberg, A. H. Karamlou, K. Kechedzhi, J. Berndtsson, T. Westerhout, A. Asfaw, D. Abanin, R. Acharya, L. A. Beni, T. I. An- dersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, N. Astrakhant- sev, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, B. Ballard, J. C. Bardin, A. B...

    2024 arXiv

  93. [100]

    Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, M

    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, Nature 642, 321 (2025)

    2025

  94. [101]

    Crippa, K

    A. Crippa, K. Jansen, and E. Rinaldi, Analysis of the con- finement string in (2 + 1)-dimensional quantum electro- dynamics with a trapped-ion quantum computer (2024), arXiv:2411.05628 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  95. [102]

    Schuhmacher, G.-X

    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 com- puter (2025), arXiv:2505.20387 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  96. [103]

    Davoudi, C.-C

    Z. Davoudi, C.-C. Hsieh, and S. V. Kadam, Quantum computation of hadron scattering in a lattice gauge theory (2025), arXiv:2505.20408 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  97. [104]

    J. C. Halimeh and P. Hauke, Reliability of lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 030503 (2020)

    2020

  98. [105]

    J. C. Halimeh, H. Lang, J. Mildenberger, Z. Jiang, and P. Hauke, Gauge-symmetry protection using single-body terms, PRX Quantum 2, 040311 (2021)

    2021

  99. [106]

    J. C. Halimeh and P. Hauke, Stabilizing gauge the- ories in quantum simulators: A brief review (2022), arXiv:2204.13709 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2022 arXiv

  100. [107]

    Buyens, J

    B. Buyens, J. Haegeman, K. Van Acoleyen, H. Ver- schelde, and F. Verstraete, Matrix product states for gauge field theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 091601 (2014)

    2014

  101. [108]

    T. V. Zache, M. Van Damme, J. C. Halimeh, P. Hauke, and D. Banerjee, Toward the continuum limit of a (1 + 1)D quantum link schwinger model, Phys. Rev. D 106, L091502 (2022)

    2022

  102. [109]

    J. C. Halimeh, M. V. Damme, T. V. Zache, D. Banerjee, and P. Hauke, Achieving the quantum field theory limit in far-from-equilibrium quantum link models, Quantum 6, 878 (2022)

    2022

  103. [110]

    C. F. Kane, S. Hariprakash, and C. W. Bauer, Obtaining continuum physics from dynamical simulations of hamil- tonian lattice gauge theories (2025), arXiv:2506.16559 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  104. [111]

    Acharya, D

    R. Acharya, D. A. Abanin, L. Aghababaie-Beni, I. Aleiner, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, N. Astrakhantsev, J. Atalaya, R. Bab- bush, D. Bacon, B. Ballard, J. C. Bardin, J. Bausch, A. Bengtsson, A. Bilmes, S. Blackwell, S. Boixo, G. Bor- toli, A. Boura...

    2025

  105. [112]

    Bluvstein, A

    D. Bluvstein, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, S. J. Evered, J. P. B. Ataides, G. Baranes, A. Gu, T. Manovitz, M. Xu, M. Kalinowski, S. Majidy, C. Kokail, N. Maskara, E. C. Trapp, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, H. Zhou, M. J. Gullans, S. F. Yelin, M. Greiner, V. Vuletic, M. Cain, and M. D....

    2025

  106. [113]

    G. M. Sommers, M. Foss-Feig, D. Hayes, D. A. Huse, and M. J. Gullans, Observation of a fault tolerance thresh- old with concatenated codes (2025), arXiv:2506.00579 [quant-ph]

    2025

  107. [114]

    S. Dasu, S. Burton, K. Mayer, D. Amaro, J. A. Ger- ber, K. Gilmore, D. Gresh, D. DelVento, A. C. Potter, and D. Hayes, Breaking even with magic: demonstra- tion of a high-fidelity logical non-clifford gate (2025), arXiv:2506.14688 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  108. [115]

    H. P. B¨ uchler, M. Hermele, S. D. Huber, M. P. A. Fisher, and P. Zoller, Atomic quantum simulator for lattice gauge theories and ring exchange models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 040402 (2005)

    2005

  109. [116]

    Zohar and B

    E. Zohar and B. Reznik, Confinement and lattice quantum-electrodynamic electric flux tubes simulated with ultracold atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 275301 (2011)

    2011

  110. [117]

    Tagliacozzo, A

    L. Tagliacozzo, A. Celi, A. Zamora, and M. Lewenstein, Optical abelian lattice gauge theories, Ann. Phys. 330, 160 (2013)

    2013

  111. [118]

    Dutta, L

    O. Dutta, L. Tagliacozzo, M. Lewenstein, and J. Za- krzewski, Toolbox for abelian lattice gauge theories with synthetic matter, Phys. Rev. A 95, 053608 (2017)

    2017

  112. [119]

    R. Ott, T. V. Zache, F. Jendrzejewski, and J. Berges, Scalable cold-atom quantum simulator for two- dimensional qed, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 130504 (2021)

    2021

  113. [120]

    Fontana, J

    P. Fontana, J. C. P. Barros, and A. Trombettoni, Quan- tum simulator of link models using spinor dipolar ultra- cold atoms, Phys. Rev. A 107, 043312 (2023)

    2023

  114. [121]

    Zohar, J

    E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, Simulating (2 + 1)- dimensional lattice qed with dynamical matter using ultracold atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 055302 (2013)

    2013

  115. [122]

    Paulson, L

    D. Paulson, L. Dellantonio, J. F. Haase, A. Celi, A. Kan, A. Jena, C. Kokail, R. van Bijnen, K. Jansen, P. Zoller, and C. A. Muschik, Towards simulating 2d effects in lattice gauge theories on a quantum computer (2020), arXiv:2008.09252 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Ringbauer, M

    M. Ringbauer, M. Meth, L. Postler, R. Stricker, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, and T. Monz, A universal qudit quan- tum processor with trapped ions, Nature Physics 18, 1053–1057 (2022)

    2022

  117. [125]

    Ciavarella, N

    A. Ciavarella, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Some con- ceptual aspects of operator design for quantum sim- ulations of non-abelian lattice gauge theories (2022), arXiv:2203.11988 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  118. [126]

    P. P. Popov, M. Meth, M. Lewestein, P. Hauke, M. Ring- bauer, E. Zohar, and V. Kasper, Variational quantum simulation of u(1) lattice gauge theories with qudit sys- tems, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013202 (2024)

    2024

  119. [127]

    Calaj´ o, G

    G. Calaj´ o, G. Magnifico, C. Edmunds, M. Ringbauer, S. Montangero, and P. Silvi, Digital quantum simulation of a (1+1)d su(2) lattice gauge theory with ion qudits, PRX Quantum 5, 040309 (2024)

    2024

  120. [128]

    D. M. K¨ urk¸ c¨ uoglu, H. Lamm, and A. Maestri, Qudit gate decomposition dependence for lattice gauge theories (2024), arXiv:2410.16414 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  121. [129]

    Ballini, J

    E. Ballini, J. Mildenberger, M. M. Wauters, and P. Hauke, Symmetry verification for noisy quantum sim- ulations of non-abelian lattice gauge theories (2025), arXiv:2412.07844 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  122. [130]

    E. Gaz, P. P. Popov, G. Pardo, M. Lewenstein, P. Hauke, and E. Zohar, Quantum simulation of non-abelian lattice gauge theories: a variational approach to D8 (2025), arXiv:2501.17863 [hep-lat]

    2025

  123. [131]

    Jiang, N

    J. Jiang, N. Klco, and O. D. Matteo, Non-abelian dynam- ics on a cube: improving quantum compilation through qudit-based simulations (2025), arXiv:2506.10945 [quant- ph]

    2025 arXiv

  124. [132]

    Hauke, D

    P. Hauke, D. Marcos, M. Dalmonte, and P. Zoller, Quan- tum simulation of a lattice schwinger model in a chain of trapped ions, Phys. Rev. X 3, 041018 (2013)

    2013

  125. [133]

    Hashizume, J

    T. Hashizume, J. C. Halimeh, P. Hauke, and D. Banerjee, Ground-state phase diagram of quantum link electrody- namics in (2 + 1)-d, SciPost Phys. 13, 017 (2022)

    2022

  126. [134]

    J. 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, Communications Physics 8, 273 (2025)

    2025

  127. [135]

    K. Mato, M. Ringbauer, S. Hillmich, and R. Wille, Adap- tive compilation of multi-level quantum operations, in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Com- puting and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, 2022) p. 484–491

    2022

  128. [136]

    K. Mato, S. Hillmich, and R. Wille, Mixed-dimensional quantum circuit simulation with decision diagrams, in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Com- puting and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, 2023) p. 978–989

    2023

  129. [137]

    K. Mato, S. Hillmich, and R. Wille, Compression of qubit circuits: Mapping to mixed-dimensional quan- tum systems, in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Software (QSW) (IEEE, 2023) p. 155–161

    2023

  130. [138]

    K. Mato, M. Ringbauer, S. Hillmich, and R. Wille, Com- pilation of entangling gates for high-dimensional quan- tum systems, in Proceedings of the 28th Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference , ASPDAC ’23 (ACM, 2023) p. 202–208

    2023

  131. [139]

    K. Mato, S. Hillmich, and R. Wille, Mixed-dimensional qudit state preparation using edge-weighted decision diagrams, in Proceedings of the 61st ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, DAC ’24 (ACM, 2024) p. 1–6

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.