Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 10 cited by

Quantum processor simulates a confined meson's light cone in an SU(2) gauge theory on 60 lattice sites.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 22:01 UTC pith:TYQBYHCL

load-bearing objection The engineering is real, but the claims overshoot: the QPU runs a large but effectively non-interacting fermion circuit, not the non-Abelian hadron dynamics promised in the title. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2602.18080 v3 pith:TYQBYHCL submitted 2026-02-20 hep-lat cond-mat.str-elhep-thnucl-thquant-ph

Observation of Robust and Coherent Non-Abelian Hadron Dynamics on Noisy Quantum Processors

Fran Il\v{c}i\'c , Ritajit Majumdar , Emil Mathew , Md. Osama Ali , Nathan Earnest-Noble , Indrakshi Raychowdhury This is my paper
classification hep-lat cond-mat.str-elhep-thnucl-thquant-ph
keywords lattice gauge theorySU(2) gauge theoryquantum simulationLoop-String-Hadron encodingmeson dynamicsbreathing modeslight-cone propagationweak-coupling approximation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tries to establish that a physics-native encoding—the Loop-String-Hadron (LSH) basis—combined with a differential measurement protocol, lets a noisy 156-qubit superconducting processor simulate real-time hadron dynamics in a (1+1)-dimensional SU(2) lattice gauge theory on 60 lattice sites. It reports a confined meson's light-cone propagation and early-time internal oscillations ('breathing' modes) extracted from quantum data with only measurement-error mitigation. The central comparison is against tensor-network simulations of the full LSH Hamiltonian and Pauli-propagation simulations of the quantum circuit, which agree within the accessible time window. The paper further argues that as the coupling approaches the continuum limit, these classical benchmarks degrade while the quantum processor maintains a consistent signal, suggesting a scalable route to non-Abelian real-time simulation.

Core claim

The paper claims that the quantum processor, running a Trotterized circuit for the weak-coupling LSH Hamiltonian on a 60-site staggered lattice (120 qubits), produces a particle-density signal whose subtracted heatmap shows a meson spreading inside a curved light cone, with internal red-blue oscillations at early times interpreted as hadronic breathing modes. The authors argue that this signal is coherent because it matches tensor-network simulations of the full LSH Hamiltonian and Pauli-propagation simulations of the noiseless circuit within the reported error bars, with only readout-error mitigation applied to the hardware data.

What carries the argument

The Loop-String-Hadron (LSH) encoding, which represents gauge-invariant degrees of freedom as local occupation numbers (loop flux, incoming/outgoing string ends) at each site, satisfying an Abelian Gauss law; combined with a weak-coupling approximation that freezes the background flux and replaces the full LSH interaction with a nearest-neighbor fermion hopping term with all flux prefactors set to unity. The circuit implements a Trotterized evolution of this approximate Hamiltonian with constant depth per step, using a zigzag qubit layout to minimize SWAPs.

Load-bearing premise

The weak-coupling approximation that reduces the full SU(2) LSH Hamiltonian to a nearest-neighbor fermion hopping term with all flux factors set to one is quantitatively faithful to the full theory in the probed time window—in particular, it does not remove the interaction that confines the meson.

What would settle it

Compare the measured particle-density heatmap for x=100 against the exact free-fermion solution of the hopping Hamiltonian on the same 60-site lattice with the same Trotter steps: if the two agree within the reported error bars, the observed signal is free-fermion propagation rather than non-Abelian hadron dynamics.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, the result shows that real-time evolution of a non-Abelian gauge theory can be tracked on current noisy hardware across 25 Trotter steps without active error mitigation, within the weak-coupling regime.
  • The differential measurement protocol (subtracting the strong-coupling vacuum evolution) removes systematic bias and boundary effects, so the same experimental design could be reused for other quench observables.
  • The benchmarking suggests that as the coupling increases toward the continuum limit, classical tensor-network and Pauli-propagation methods degrade while the fixed-shot QPU signal remains stable—implying a window where quantum hardware gives the more reliable answer.
  • The LSH encoding's locality, as exploited here, keeps Gauss's law exact in the circuit, so the same approach is expected to transfer to larger lattices and eventually to SU(3) lattice gauge theory.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The observed 'confined light cone' is also consistent with a non-interacting fermion hopping model; a decisive control is to run the same circuit with the flux degrees of freedom fully frozen and compare against the exact free-fermion evolution on the same lattice.
  • The paper's runtime comparison (QPU constant 20 seconds per step versus growing classical times) uses a fixed shot budget and does not include transpilation and calibration overhead; a fair resource comparison would need the full wall-clock time for the QPU experiment.
  • The agreement between TN (full LSH) and PP (approximated LSH) is used to validate the weak-coupling approximation, but for x=200 the TN itself breaks down after 10 steps, so that particular comparison cannot validate the approximation at the continuum end.
  • If the weak-coupling Hamiltonian is genuinely the free-fermion hopping model, then any future claim of non-Abelian quantum advantage must demonstrate a departure from that model's predictions, for example through string-breaking at later times.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a quantum simulation of a (1+1)-dimensional SU(2) lattice gauge theory on a 156-qubit IBM processor using the Loop-String-Hadron (LSH) encoding. A 60-site staggered lattice (120 qubits) is evolved for up to 25 first-order Trotter steps in the weak-coupling regime x=100, with a differential measurement protocol and only measurement-error mitigation. The authors claim to observe the light-cone propagation of a confined meson, early-time internal ('breathing') oscillations, and to extract a breathing-mode frequency. They benchmark the hardware data against tensor-network (TN) simulations of the full LSH Hamiltonian and Pauli-propagation simulations of the noiseless circuit, and argue that classical methods encounter an entanglement/magic wall while the QPU remains robust, suggesting a path toward quantum advantage. The implemented circuit, however, is based on a weak-coupling approximation (Eqs. (26)-(28)) that freezes the flux (nl) degrees of freedom and reduces the interaction to independent fermionic hopping terms; the validation loop is partly self-consistent because the electric phase θ is chosen to match the TN bosonic cutoff (End Notes).

Significance. If the claims were substantiated, this would be a landmark: a physics-native, size-independent-depth encoding for a non-Abelian gauge theory, executed at a scale of 120 qubits and 17,660 two-qubit gates, with a measurement strategy that extracts coherent signal using only readout mitigation. The paper deserves credit for the LSH circuit construction, the scale of the hardware demonstration, the public data commitment, and the unusually transparent discussion of TN truncation errors (Supplementary Table 2). The authors also explicitly disclose the θ-cutoff matching in the End Notes. Nevertheless, the evidence as presented does not support the central claims: the abstract promises a quantitative breathing-mode frequency that never appears; the implemented Hamiltonian is a two-species fermion chain with the non-Abelian flux-string degrees frozen; and the TN validation is partly self-consistent. The significance is therefore conditional; in its current form the paper's physical conclusions are not established.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; 'Observing Real-time Dynamics'] The abstract states that 'we extract a breathing-mode frequency as a spectroscopic observable,' but no frequency is reported anywhere in the main text, Methods, or Supplementary Information. There is no numerical value, no error bar, no fitting procedure, and no comparison with a theoretical expectation. This is a central quantitative claim and its absence is not a presentation issue. The authors must either report the extraction in full or remove/qualify the claim.
  2. [Methods, 'Approximations for weak coupling regime' and 'Building the Quantum Circuit'; Eqs. (26)-(28), (37), (41)] The unitary implemented on the QPU corresponds to the weak-coupling approximation, not to the LSH Hamiltonian (14)-(16). Under this approximation the flux numbers are frozen (nl(r) ≈ li - ni(1-no)), the square-root flux prefactors in (16) are set to 1, and H_I reduces to Eq. (28): independent hopping of the ni and no species. The electric term (26)/(41) is a static potential on (ni,no)=(0,1) sites plus a global phase. Consequently the approximate dynamics conserves Qi=Σni and Qo=Σno separately, and is at most a two-species fermion chain with density-density coupling; the non-Abelian flux-string degrees of freedom distinguishing SU(2) from an Abelian or free-fermion model are spectators. The only reported QPU observable is the site-resolved density n_f(r,t), which is insensitive to the dropped cross-species terms of (16). The light cone and oscillations of such a model are generic single-
  3. [End Notes (final paragraph)] The TN benchmark is partly self-consistent. The End Notes state that 'the value of the phase angle θ in the quantum algorithm is chosen to match this limitation on the cut-off' of the TN (bosonic cutoff SIX). θ controls the electric-energy phase in Eq. (42), i.e., the strength of the static confining potential; choosing it to match the truncated TN model removes the independence of the classical benchmark. Moreover, the weak-coupling approximation was justified by the condition li >> 1, while a cutoff at nl~6 is not in that regime; the validity condition of the approximation and the benchmark setup are in tension. An independent validation should set θ from the physical couplings without reference to the TN cutoff, and should demonstrate robustness of the observables to the cutoff/θ choice.
  4. ['Proof of Concept' (Fig. 7)] The validation of the approximate Hamiltonian against exact diagonalization of the full LSH Hamiltonian uses only the total particle number Σ_r n_f(r,t). This quantity is exactly conserved in both the full and the approximate dynamics (Methods, footnote 2), so the agreement in Fig. 7 carries no information about whether the approximation reproduces the spatial density profile, the light-cone shape, or the internal oscillations on which the paper's claims rest. The comparison should be repeated for observables that are not conserved, e.g., the site-resolved density n_f(r,t) or two-point correlators, for a system size and time where the approximate and full dynamics differ.
  5. ['Estimating Errors' (Eqs. (46)-(50)); Table 3; Table 1] The uncertainty quantification and the resource comparison favor the QPU by construction. The shared uncertainty band σ_shared is computed from the four methods including the QPU itself, so the statement that the QPU error bars 'enter the shaded region' at all time slices is partly tautological. Table 3 shows QPU errors exceeding the TN and PP-GPU errors by up to an order of magnitude at later times (e.g., 0.2397 vs 0.0114 at Trotter step 20). The runtime comparison in Table 1 fixes the QPU budget at 10,000 shots (20 s per Trotter step), so it compares fixed-shot measurement time against classical methods required to reach comparable accuracy; it does not establish an accuracy-matched resource advantage. The 'high-fidelity' and 'practical quantum advantage' claims should be re-quantified with the QPU excluded from the reference distribution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption describes an initial 'zero-entanglement product state containing two baryons (total fermion number n_f=4)' that 'transitions the system to a single meson state (n_f=2)' at t=1. This is inconsistent with the meson initial state (n_f=1 at two sites) described in the text and with the conservation of the global charge Q. Please clarify whether this is a schematic of a different (baryonic) process.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The sentence 'The dynamics on the left half of the figure (lattice sites 0−29) are from one calculation, while the right half of the plot shows another' is confusing. Merging two different runs and using their agreement as validation of the exact theory needs clarification; at most it demonstrates reproducibility or mirror symmetry, not agreement with the exact theory.
  3. [Data Availability / Code Availability] The Data Availability section says the data are at a 'public GitHub repository' but gives no URL, and the code is available only 'upon reasonable request.' For a reproducibility-oriented manuscript, please provide the repository link and a DOI or versioned release.
  4. [Eqs. (29)-(32)] The scaled-time definitions contain presentation typos (e.g., 'W=2xa 3H') and the relation between the scaled time τ, the lattice spacing a, and the coupling x is easy to misread. Please give a clean derivation of τ and of the conversion rule for changed x.
  5. [Supplementary Table 2] The TN truncation errors for x=200 exceed 10^-3 already at step 10 and ~10^-2 at later steps. The main text states that the TN 'almost completely broke down' for x=200; please state the truncation-error threshold used to define breakdown, since the reported values alone do not set that threshold.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

The QPU-TN validation loop is partially closed: the quantum circuit's electric phase θ is explicitly matched to the TN bosonic cutoff, and the weak-coupling approximation is justified by same-author prior work [40]; real QPU execution and full-LSH TN data retain some independent content.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [End Notes, paragraph beginning 'A technical remark on imposing the bosonic cut-off in this computation is worth mentioning here']
    "The TN algorithm can only work with a finite cut-off; we choose the value of the cut-off to be SIX for the TN benchmark. The value of the phase angle θ in the quantum algorithm is chosen to match this limitation on the cut-off."

    The TN calculation is the paper's benchmark against the full LSH Hamiltonian (14)–(16). The phase angle θ enters the QPU electric term (Eq. 41) and is identified via Eq. 42 with the background flux/electric energy. By declaring θ 'chosen to match' the TN's finite flux cutoff, the benchmark's truncation is baked into the simulated circuit's Hamiltonian parameter. The subsequent QPU-TN agreement on the light-cone and breathing-mode observables is therefore partly fixed by construction, not an independent confirmation of the weak-coupling approximation or of the claimed non-Abelian dynamics.

  2. self citation load bearing [Main text, 'The Hamiltonian and Its Continuum Limit'; Methods, 'Approximations for weak coupling regime']
    "This weak coupling approximate version of the LSH Hamiltonian has previously been developed in the context of analog simulation [40]. ... This approximation is valid [40] if we focus on the weak coupling regime x >> 1, and the off-diagonals contribute more to the dynamics."

    The load-bearing reduction from the full SU(2) LSH Hamiltonian (14)–(16) to the implemented circuit Hamiltonian (26)–(28) is justified by citation [40], prior work by one of the present authors (Raychowdhury). The same reference supplies the 'valid' assertion for the weak-coupling regime on which the whole QPU experiment rests. Because the QPU implements exactly this approximate model, the claim that the hardware data show non-Abelian hadron dynamics depends on an in-house result; the independent TN check that could break this self-citation chain is weakened by the θ-matching identified in the previous step.

full rationale

The paper is not fully circular: the QPU is real 156-qubit hardware, the TN simulation runs the full LSH Hamiltonian, and the Pauli-propagation simulation is a separate noiseless-circuit check. Those elements give the work independent content. However, the central validation loop is partially closed. The quantum circuit's electric phase θ—which controls the only non-trivial electric contribution in the approximate Hamiltonian (Eqs. 40–42)—is explicitly 'chosen to match' the TN bosonic cutoff. Since the TN is the reference used to certify the weak-coupling approximation and the quantum algorithm, its truncation is encoded into the QPU Hamiltonian, making part of the QPU-TN agreement in the light-cone width and internal oscillation frequency a consequence of parameter matching rather than an emergent prediction. In addition, the weak-coupling approximation that converts the full SU(2) LSH Hamiltonian into the implemented hopping circuit is justified by same-author prior work [40], and the proof-of-concept comparison (Fig. 7) checks only the exactly conserved total particle number, so it does not independently constrain the spatial profile or oscillations. The weak-coupling circuit is also effectively a fermionic hopping model in a static potential, which is a significant physical-interpretation risk; this is not by itself circularity, but it heightens the importance of the benchmark, whose independence is compromised. These issues make the claim of observed non-Abelian hadron dynamics partially circular, while the genuine hardware execution and the full-LSH TN data prevent a score of 8 or higher.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced; the LSH basis and weak-coupling scheme are prior constructs. The central simulation rests on a chain of prior constructs and on the weak-coupling approximation that freezes flux and reduces H_I to Eq. (28). The most consequential free input is the flux value/phase angle θ, tuned to the TN cutoff rather than independently fixed.

free parameters (3)
  • li (incoming boundary flux) / effective flux value = not reported; implicitly set so θ matches the TN bosonic cutoff
    The weak-coupling approximation assumes li >> 0 and uses nl(r) ≈ li − ni(1−no). The phase angle θ in Eq. (42) depends on nl, and End Notes say θ is chosen to match the TN cutoff. The actual li value is never stated.
  • θ (electric-energy phase angle) = chosen to match the TN bosonic cutoff; θ = −δτ(nl/2 + 3/4)
    Set to match the classical tensor-network cutoff rather than fixed independently; this tuning directly affects the QPU circuit and the extracted oscillation structure.
  • δτ (Trotter step) = 0.0015
    Fixed throughout the work; a discretization parameter chosen small to suppress Trotter error, but not justified by convergence scans in the paper.
axioms (6)
  • standard math The LSH Hamiltonian (13) is exactly equivalent to the Kogut-Susskind Hamiltonian (4) for the same bosonic cutoff.
    Invoked in Methods under 'LSH Hamiltonian'; relies on the prepotential framework of refs. [35-38,50-53] rather than proven in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Weak-coupling approximation: nl(r) ≈ li − ni(1−no) for li >> 0, square-root flux prefactors set to 1, and H_I reduces to Eq. (28).
    Methods, 'Approximations for weak coupling regime'. This is the load-bearing simplification that converts the full LSH interaction into a quadratic fermion hopping model.
  • domain assumption Open boundary conditions with li >> 0 and global charge sector (B,q) = (0,0); the background flux contributes only a global phase h0_E.
    Methods, Eqs. (25)-(26). The approximation that a large incoming flux can be treated as an unobservable background is stated 'without any loss of generality' but is not verified on hardware.
  • domain assumption TN simulation of the full LSH Hamiltonian with bosonic cutoff 2jmax=5 and bond dimension Dmax=200 is accurate up to the reported time window.
    Methods, 'Benchmarking via TN'; truncation errors in Table 2 show growing errors for x=100 and x=200, so this assumption weakens exactly where the paper claims a classical bottleneck.
  • domain assumption Pauli propagation with extrapolated term counts or coefficient cutoff 1e-5 reproduces the noiseless QPU circuit.
    Methods, 'Benchmarking via PP'; the extrapolated terminal term counts (9,400-66,000) are estimates, and the method is known to be approximate for non-Clifford circuits.
  • domain assumption Differential measurement (subtracting SCV evolution from meson evolution) cancels systematic hardware biases.
    Fig. 13 and 'Experimental measurement from QPU'; it is plausible but not proven that all biases cancel, especially state-dependent errors.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 24373 in / 17328 out tokens · 158837 ms · 2026-08-02T22:01:55.316368+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The real-time evolution of strongly interacting matter remains a frontier of fundamental physics, as classical simulations are hampered by exponential Hilbert space growth and rapid, unmanageable growth of quantum entanglement. This study reports the quantum simulation of hadron dynamics within a $(1+1)$-dimensional SU(2) lattice gauge theory using a 156-qubit IBM superconducting processor. Leveraging a hardware-efficient Loop-String-Hadron (LSH) encoding, we simulate the dynamics of the physical degrees of freedom on a $60$-site lattice in the weak-coupling regime, as a crucial step toward the continuum limit. The hardware data reveal confined meson propagation and early-time oscillations of the mesonic profile, from which we extract a breathing-mode frequency as a spectroscopic observable. Benchmarking against tensor-network simulations of the full LSH Hamiltonian and Pauli-propagation simulations of the noiseless circuit supports the validity of the physical approximation, the quantum algorithm and the observed dynamics within the accessible time window. These results show that physics-native encodings can enable scalable access to coherent non-Abelian real-time dynamics on noisy quantum hardware.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.18080 by Emil Mathew, Fran Il\v{c}i\'c, Indrakshi Raychowdhury, Md. Osama Ali, Nathan Earnest-Noble, Ritajit Majumdar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: From gauge redundancy to physicality: The lo￾cal electric fields (E a ) and charge densities (ρ a ) of a non-Abelian gauge theory carry colour index, add up to form the Gauss law operator G a and are elements of the Lie algebra with a = 1, 2, 3 for SU(2). The link operators and matter fields carry fundamen￾tal group index α = 1, 2 at each site, which transform by the generators of the Lie algebra present l… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Encoding physical degrees of freedom to qubits. The local fermion number is defined on the staggered lattice as nf (r) = ni(r)+no(r) for even sites and nf (r) = 2−[ni(r)+no(r)] for odd sites. At any site, nf = 2 denotes the presence of a Baryon, nf = 1 denotes the presence of the end of a meson or a longer string, and nf = 0 denotes the vacuum for fermions. In the bottom panel, the qubit layout is given. U… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Schematic of quantum evolution on a 4-site lattice. The diagram illustrates the buildup of entanglement and particle number fluctuations over 3 Trotter steps under the LSH Hamiltonian. The system is initialized at t = 0 in a zero-entanglement product state containing two baryons (total fermion number nf = 4). At t = 1, the evolution transitions the system to a single meson state (nf = 2). Subsequent steps … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Real Time Propagation of SU(2) Hadron: validation of the ansatz, algorithm, and hardware implementa￾tion. The top panel displays a cartoon representation of the initial states; (a) The SCV for a staggered lattice, and (b) A meson is placed at the middle of the lattice on top of the SCV. The fermion/antifermion number nf = 0 at all sites except at two middle sites of (b), which are both singly occupied and … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Error bound vs. compute time for observable P corresponding to average particle-antiparticle density nf (t) = r nf (r, t). We consider four independent computed value of the observable n (m) f (t), m ∈ {TN,PP − CPU,PP − GPU, QPU}. For these distributions, the median is used as the reference point, and the intrinsic method-to-method uncertainty is taken as the sample standard deviation. Independently, globa… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparing robustness of quantum simulation versus classical simulation towards x → ∞. Top row: The dynamics of average fermion density is plotted with time. For x = 50, MPS and PP agree exactly, QPU shows deviation but follow the trend. For x = 100, MPS and PP start to separate out after 5th Trotter steps, QPU deviates but follows the trend. For x = 200, post 10th Trotter step, MPS and PP do not follow the… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Proof of concept. Particle number for a lattice of 6 sites as calculated from qubit expectation values at each Trotter step using Qiskit simulator, compared with the exact diagonal￾ization result for the full LSH Hamiltonian, which is free from any Trotterization error and approximation error. Parameters in the quantum circuit are chosen to reproduce the intended regime of the theory with x = 100 and m/g =… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The Quantum Circuit: implements unitaries constructed for each term of the Hamiltonian. The mass Hamiltonian is a single qubit rotation, while the building block of electric term and interaction term of the Hamiltonian are 2-qubit operations. Use of a number of swap gates allows simultaneous application of the unitaries for both in a single Trotter step. The middle panel presents two Trotter steps of the f… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Supplementary Figure: Growth of classical computation cost towards the weak coupling limit. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Supplementary Figure: Probing high fidelity dynamics for different parameter values. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Supplementary Figure: Robust quantum simulation upto the same physical time. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Supplementary Figure: POC for errror mitigation strategy employed. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Supplementary Figure: Demonstrating differential measurement protocol demonstrated for PP. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 10 Pith papers

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

  1. Unified resonant-manifold framework for dynamical quantum phase transitions

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A resonant-manifold framework unifies manifold and branch DQPTs by attributing them to resonances within the initial manifold and with a transitional manifold connected by low-order processes, shown in Z2 LGT quenches.

  2. Tightening energy-based boson truncation bound using Monte Carlo-assisted methods

    hep-lat 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Monte Carlo-assisted tightening of the energy-based boson truncation bound substantially reduces volume dependence in (1+1)D scalar field theory and (2+1)D U(1) gauge theory.

  3. Tightening energy-based boson truncation bound using Monte Carlo-assisted methods

    hep-lat 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A Monte Carlo-assisted analytic method tightens energy-based bounds on boson truncation errors, substantially reducing the volume dependence of the required cutoff in scalar and gauge theories.

  4. Observation of glueball excitations and string breaking in a $2+1$D $\mathbb{Z}_2$ lattice gauge theory on a trapped-ion quantum computer

    hep-lat 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A trapped-ion quantum computer simulates 2+1D Z2 lattice gauge theory dynamics, revealing glueball excitations and multi-order string breaking.

  5. Observation of genuine $2+1$D string dynamics in a U$(1)$ lattice gauge theory with a tunable plaquette term on a trapped-ion quantum computer

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Quantum simulation on trapped ions shows that a plaquette term in a 2+1D U(1) gauge theory enables string propagation in the plane and extended matter creation, realizing genuine two-dimensional dynamics.

  6. Role of flavor degrees of freedom in quantum simulations of disorder-free localization

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    In a flavor-extended Z2 lattice gauge theory, n=2 binary bond disorder yields only a long-lived nonergodic transient, whereas n=4 and n=8 multilevel disorder produce consistent many-body localization signatures; local...

  7. String dynamics of a (2+1)D U(1) quantum link model on a digital quantum computer

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Digital quantum simulations of string dynamics in a (2+1)D U(1) quantum link model on IBM hardware with up to 112 qubits agree with tensor networks at short times and thermal averages at long times.

  8. Unified resonant-manifold framework for dynamical quantum phase transitions

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A resonant-manifold framework unifies manifold and branch DQPTs by linking them to resonances within the initial manifold or a transitional manifold, with regularity tied to manifold multiplicity, shown in Z2 LGT quenches.

  9. Tightening energy-based boson truncation bound using Monte Carlo-assisted methods

    hep-lat 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    New analytic and Monte Carlo-assisted method tightens energy-based boson truncation bounds, reducing volume dependence in (1+1)D scalar and (2+1)D U(1) gauge theories.

  10. Dynamics of entanglement entropy for a locally monitored lattice gauge theory

    quant-ph 2026-03 reject novelty 5.0

    Local projective measurements of electric flux and mass density in a 1+1D Z2 gauge theory yield size-independent late-time entanglement saturation, indicating no measurement-induced phase transition in the no-click limit.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 46 linked inside Pith · cited by 7 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A.et al.Real-time dynamics of lattice gauge theories with a few-qubit quantum computer.Nature534, 516–519 (2016).1605.04570

    Martinez, E. A.et al.Real-time dynamics of lattice gauge theories with a few-qubit quantum computer.Nature534, 516–519 (2016).1605.04570

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Yang, B.et al.Observation of gauge invariance in a 71-site Bose–Hubbard quantum simulator.Nature587, 392–396 (2020).2003.08945

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Mil, A.et al.A scalable realization of local U(1) gauge invariance in cold atomic mixtures.Science367, 1128–1130 (2020).1909.07641

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    C., Jiang, Z

    Mildenberger, J., Mruczkiewicz, W., Halimeh, J. C., Jiang, Z. & Hauke, P. Confinement in aZ 2 lattice gauge theory on a quantum computer.Nature Phys.21, 312–317 (2025). 2203.08905

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Meth, M.et al.Simulating two-dimensional lattice gauge theories on a qudit quantum computer.Nature Phys.21, 570–576 (2025).2310.12110

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    A.et al.Visualizing dynamics of charges and strings in (2 + 1)D lattice gauge theories.Nature642, 315– 320 (2025).2409.17142

    Cochran, T. A.et al.Visualizing dynamics of charges and strings in (2 + 1)D lattice gauge theories.Nature642, 315– 320 (2025).2409.17142

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    2107.13563

    Zhou, Z.-Y.et al.Thermalization dynamics of a gauge the- ory on a quantum simulator.Science377, abl6277 (2022). 2107.13563

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    & Cetina, M

    Mueller, N., Wang, T., Katz, O., Davoudi, Z. & Cetina, M. Quantum computing universal thermalization dynamics in a (2 + 1)D Lattice Gauge Theory.Nature Commun.16, 5492 (2025).2408.00069

    arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    15, 1168–1173 (2019).1901.07103

    Schweizer, C.et al.Floquet approach toZ 2 lattice gauge the- ories with ultracold atoms in optical lattices.Nature Phys. 15, 1168–1173 (2019).1901.07103

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    Mueller, N.et al.Quantum Computation of Dynamical Quantum Phase Transitions and Entanglement Tomogra- phy in a Lattice Gauge Theory.PRX Quantum4, 030323 (2023).2210.03089

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    C., Illa, M., Ciavarella, A

    Farrell, R. C., Illa, M., Ciavarella, A. N. & Savage, M. J. Quantum simulations of hadron dynamics in the Schwinger model using 112 qubits.Phys. Rev. D109, 114510 (2024). 2401.08044

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    & Kadam, S

    Davoudi, Z., Hsieh, C.-C. & Kadam, S. V. Scattering wave packets of hadrons in gauge theories: Preparation on a quan- tum computer.Quantum8, 1520 (2024).2402.00840

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    2507.08088

    Cobos, J.et al.Real-Time Dynamics in a (2+1)-D Gauge Theory: The Stringy Nature on a Superconducting Quan- tum Simulator.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.08088(2025). 2507.08088

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Gonzalez-Cuadra, D.et al.Observation of string breaking on a (2 + 1)D Rydberg quantum simulator.Nature642, 321–326 (2025).2410.16558

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    2508.06639

    Xiang, D.-S.et al.Real-time scattering and freeze-out dynamics in Rydberg-atom lattice gauge theory (2025). 2508.06639

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Klco, N., Stryker, J. R. & Savage, M. J. SU(2) non-Abelian gauge field theory in one dimension on digital quantum com- puters.Phys. Rev. D101, 074512 (2020).1908.06935

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    & Savage, M

    Ciavarella, A., Klco, N. & Savage, M. J. Trailhead for quan- tum simulation of SU(3) Yang-Mills lattice gauge theory in the local multiplet basis.Phys. Rev. D103, 094501 (2021). 2101.10227

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Y.et al.SU(2) hadrons on a quantum computer via a variational approach.Nature Commun.12, 6499 (2021)

    Atas, Y. Y.et al.SU(2) hadrons on a quantum computer via a variational approach.Nature Commun.12, 6499 (2021). 2102.08920

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Y.et al.Simulating one-dimensional quantum chro- modynamics on a quantum computer: Real-time evolutions of tetra- and pentaquarks.Phys

    Atas, Y. Y.et al.Simulating one-dimensional quantum chro- modynamics on a quantum computer: Real-time evolutions of tetra- and pentaquarks.Phys. Rev. Res.5, 033184 (2023). 2207.03473

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Ciavarella, A. N. & Bauer, C. W. Quantum Simulation of SU(3) Lattice Yang-Mills Theory at Leading Order in Large-Nc Expansion.Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 111901 (2024). 2402.10265

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    C.et al.Preparations for quantum simulations of quantum chromodynamics in 1+1 dimensions

    Farrell, R. C.et al.Preparations for quantum simulations of quantum chromodynamics in 1+1 dimensions. I. Axial gauge.Phys. Rev. D107, 054512 (2023).2207.01731

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    C.et al.Preparations for quantum simulations of quantum chromodynamics in 1+1 dimensions

    Farrell, R. C.et al.Preparations for quantum simulations of quantum chromodynamics in 1+1 dimensions. II. Single- baryonβ-decay in real time.Phys. Rev. D107, 054513 (2023).2209.10781

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    A.et al.Pathfinding quantum simulations of neutrinoless double-βdecay.Nature Commun.17, 1826 (2026).2506.05757

    Chernyshev, I. A.et al.Pathfinding quantum simulations of neutrinoless double-βdecay.Nature Commun.17, 1826 (2026).2506.05757

    arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    W., Davoudi, Z., Klco, N

    Bauer, C. W., Davoudi, Z., Klco, N. & Savage, M. J. Quan- tum simulation of fundamental particles and forces.Nature Rev. Phys.5, 420–432 (2023).2404.06298

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    & Stryker, J

    Raychowdhury, I. & Stryker, J. R. Loop, string, and hadron dynamics in SU(2) Hamiltonian lattice gauge theories.Phys. Rev. D101, 114502 (2020).1912.06133

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    Berg, E. v. d., Minev, Z. K. & Temme, K. Model-free readout-error mitigation for quantum expectation values. Phys. Rev. A105, 032620 (2022).2012.09738

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    S., Jones, T., Teng, Y., Angrisani, A

    Rudolph, M. S., Jones, T., Teng, Y., Angrisani, A. & Holmes, Z. Pauli Propagation: A Computational Frame- work for Simulating Quantum Systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.21606(2025).2505.21606

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    & Venugopalan, R

    Amorosso, R., Syritsyn, S. & Venugopalan, R. Entangle- ment entropy of a color flux tube in (2+1)D Yang-Mills the- ory.JHEP12, 177 (2024).2410.00112

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    & Skands, P

    Altmann, J., Dubla, A., Greco, V., Rossi, A. & Skands, P. Towards the understanding of heavy quarks hadronization: from leptonic to heavy-ion collisions.Eur. Phys. J. C85, 16 (2025).2405.19137

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    & Sch¨ afer, A

    M¨ uller, B. & Sch¨ afer, A. Quark-Hadron Transition and En- tanglement (2022).2211.16265

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    Kogut, J. B. & Susskind, L. Hamiltonian Formulation of Wilson’s Lattice Gauge Theories.Phys. Rev. D11, 395– 408 (1975)

    1975

  33. [33]

    J., Oitmaa, J

    Hamer, C. J., Oitmaa, J. & Zheng, W.-H. Series analysis of U(1) and SU(2) lattice gauge theory in (2+1)-dimensions. Phys. Rev. D45, 4652–4658 (1992)

    1992

  34. [34]

    Kim, Y.et al.Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance.Nature618, 500–505 (2023)

    2023

  35. [35]

    Harmonic oscillator prepotentials in SU(2) lattice gauge theory.J

    Mathur, M. Harmonic oscillator prepotentials in SU(2) lattice gauge theory.J. Phys. A38, 10015–10026 (2005). hep-lat/0403029

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  36. [36]

    Loop Approach to Lattice Gauge Theories

    Mathur, M. Loop Approach to Lattice Gauge Theories. Nucl. Phys. B779, 32–62 (2007).hep-lat/0702007. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  37. [37]

    & Raychowdhury, I

    Anishetty, R. & Raychowdhury, I. SU(2) lattice gauge the- ory: Local dynamics on nonintersecting electric flux loops. Phys. Rev. D90, 114503 (2014).1408.6331

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  38. [38]

    Low energy spectrum of SU(2) lattice gauge theory: An alternate proposal via loop formulation

    Raychowdhury, I. Low energy spectrum of SU(2) lattice gauge theory: An alternate proposal via loop formulation. Eur. Phys. J. C79, 235 (2019).1804.01304

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  39. [39]

    Davoudi, Z., Shaw, A. F. & Stryker, J. R. General quantum algorithms for Hamiltonian simulation with applications to a non-Abelian lattice gauge theory.Quantum7, 1213 (2023). 2212.14030

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    & Raychowdhury, I

    Dasgupta, R. & Raychowdhury, I. Cold-atom quantum sim- ulator for string and hadron dynamics in non-Abelian lattice gauge theory.Phys. Rev. A105, 023322 (2022).2009.13969

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    & Schafer, A

    Muller, B. & Schafer, A. Entropy Creation in Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions.Int. J. Mod. Phys. E20, 2235–2267 (2011).1110.2378

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  42. [42]

    Phys.8, 368 (2025).2411.04550

    Ebner, L.et al.Entanglement properties of SU(2) gauge theory.Commun. Phys.8, 368 (2025).2411.04550

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Mathew, E.et al.Tensor-network toolbox for prob- ing dynamics of non-Abelian gauge theories.PoSLA T- TICE2024, 472 (2025).2501.18301

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Das, D.et al.Eigenstate Thermalization in 1+1- Dimensional SU(2) Lattice Gauge Theory Coupled with Dy- namical Fermions (2025).2509.18269

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Raychowdhury, I.Prepotential Formulation of Lattice Gauge Theories. Ph.D. thesis, Calcutta U. (2013)

    2013

  46. [46]

    V., Raychowdhury, I

    Kadam, S. V., Raychowdhury, I. & Stryker, J. R. Loop- string-hadron formulation of an su(3) gauge theory with dynamical quarks.Phys. Rev. D107, 094513 (2023). URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.107. 094513

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.107 2023

  47. [47]

    V., Naskar, A., Raychowdhury, I

    Kadam, S. V., Naskar, A., Raychowdhury, I. & Stryker, J. R. Loop-string-hadron approach to su(3) lattice yang-mills the- ory: Hilbert space of a trivalent vertex.Phys. Rev. D111, 074516 (2025). URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevD.111.074516

    2025

  48. [48]

    V., Naskar, A., Raychowdhury, I

    Kadam, S. V., Naskar, A., Raychowdhury, I. & Stryker, J. R. Loop-string-hadron approach to su(3) lattice yang- mills theory, ii: Operator representation for the trivalent vertex (2025). URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2512.11796. 2512.11796

    arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2506.20658.2506.20658

    Lanes, O.et al.A framework for quantum advantage (2025). URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2506.20658.2506.20658

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    & Anishetty, R

    Mathur, M., Raychowdhury, I. & Anishetty, R. SU(N) Ir- reducible Schwinger Bosons.J. Math. Phys.51, 093504 (2010).1003.5487

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  51. [51]

    & Raychowdhury, I

    Anishetty, R., Mathur, M. & Raychowdhury, I. Irreducible SU(3) Schhwinger Bosons.J. Math. Phys.50, 053503 (2009).0901.0644

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  52. [52]

    & Raychowdhury, I

    Anishetty, R., Mathur, M. & Raychowdhury, I. Prepotential formulation of SU(3) lattice gauge theory.J. Phys. A43, 035403 (2010).0909.2394

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  53. [53]

    & Anishetty, R

    Raychowdhury, I. & Anishetty, R. Prepotential Formulation of Lattice Gauge Theory.PoSLA TTICE2014, 313 (2014). 1411.3068

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  54. [54]

    & Shaw, A

    Davoudi, Z., Raychowdhury, I. & Shaw, A. Search for efficient formulations for Hamiltonian simulation of non- Abelian lattice gauge theories.Phys. Rev. D104, 074505 (2021).2009.11802

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states.Annals Phys.326, 96– 192 (2011).1008.3477

    Schollwoeck, U. The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states.Annals Phys.326, 96– 192 (2011).1008.3477

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  56. [56]

    Ba˜ nuls, M. C. Tensor Network Algorithms: A Route Map. Ann. Rev. Condensed Matter Phys.14, 173–191 (2023). 2205.10345

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    Ba˜ nuls, M. C. & Cichy, K. Review on Novel Methods for Lattice Gauge Theories.Rept. Prog. Phys.83, 024401 (2020).1910.00257

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  58. [58]

    Fishman, M., White, S. R. & Stoudenmire, E. M. The ITen- sor Software Library for Tensor Network Calculations.Sci- Post Phys. Codebases4 (2022). URLhttps://scipost. org/10.21468/SciPostPhysCodeb.4

    doi:10.21468/scipostphyscodeb.4 2022

  59. [59]

    Fishman, M., White, S. R. & Stoudenmire, E. M. Code- base release 0.3 for ITensor.SciPost Phys. Codebases 4–r0.3 (2022). URLhttps://scipost.org/10.21468/ SciPostPhysCodeb.4-r0.3

    2022

  60. [60]

    Paeckel, S.et al.Time-evolution methods for matrix- product states.Annals Phys.411, 167998 (2019).1901. 05824

    2019

  61. [61]

    In2023 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Quantum Computing and Engi- neering (QCE), vol

    Bayraktar, H.et al.cuquantum sdk: A high-performance library for accelerating quantum science. In2023 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Quantum Computing and Engi- neering (QCE), vol. 01, 1050–1061 (2023)

    2023

  62. [62]

    cupauliprop: A high-performance library for pauli propagation quantum simulators

    NVIDIA Corporation. cupauliprop: A high-performance library for pauli propagation quantum simulators. https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cuquantum/latest/ cupauliprop/overview.html(2026). NVIDIA cuQuantum documentation, accessed 2026-03-11. 17 Supplementary Information Supplementary Information Quantum simulation vs. classical simulation The details of the runt...

    arXiv 2026