pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.11306 · v1 · pith:GGUOBUBXnew · submitted 2026-06-09 · ✦ hep-lat · quant-ph

Implementing Hamiltonian Renormalization Group Flow on Quantum Computers with VAPOR

Federica Fragomeno , Jorden Roberts , Saeed Rastgoo , Klaus Liegener This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 10:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-lat quant-ph
keywords variational quantum algorithmrenormalization group flowlattice gauge theorySU(2) Yang-MillsHamiltonian renormalizationPauli string decompositionfixed pointsdiscretization errors
0
0 comments X

The pith

VAPOR identifies fixed points of naively discretized operators using a variational quantum algorithm

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

The paper develops VAPOR, a variational quantum algorithm to implement Hamiltonian renormalization group flow on quantum computers for lattice gauge theory simulations. VAPOR works by decomposing operators into Pauli strings, identifying RG flow orbits, and determining fixed points of a naively discretized operator. The approach is illustrated with a toy model of a kinematic operator in a symmetry-restricted SU(2) Yang-Mills theory. A sympathetic reader would care because this targets discretization errors that currently limit numerical capacity in Hamiltonian Lattice Gauge Theory.

Core claim

VAPOR decomposes operators into Pauli strings, identifies RG flow orbits, and determines fixed points of a naively discretized operator, as illustrated using a toy model of a kinematic operator in a symmetry-restricted SU(2) Yang-Mills theory.

What carries the argument

VAPOR, the variational quantum algorithm that decomposes operators into Pauli strings to identify RG flow orbits and fixed points of discretized operators.

If this is right

  • The fixed points supply discretization-error-free operators for use in lattice gauge theory simulations.
  • This method enables implementation of Hamiltonian RG flow directly on quantum computers.
  • The decomposition into Pauli strings and orbit identification can be applied to other operators in the same symmetry-restricted theory.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the method succeeds on the toy model it could be tested on dynamical operators beyond the kinematic case.
  • The Pauli-string decomposition might reduce circuit depth requirements when scaling to larger symmetry-restricted models.
  • Similar variational searches could be adapted to locate fixed points in other discretized gauge theories.

Load-bearing premise

The variational quantum algorithm can reliably locate the RG fixed points of the discretized operator in the presence of quantum hardware noise and without the fixed-point search itself introducing new discretization artifacts.

What would settle it

Executing VAPOR on the toy model and verifying that the identified fixed point reproduces the expected continuum limit of the kinematic operator without added errors from noise or the algorithm.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.11306 by Federica Fragomeno, Jorden Roberts, Klaus Liegener, Saeed Rastgoo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Operator families (columns) across different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: (a) Toy model based on a 2D lattice with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Pauli coefficients [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Fixed-point 4-flux operator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: VQE ground state simulation results using a HEA for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

While Hamiltonian Lattice Gauge Theory is gaining traction, today's limited numerical capacity leaves simulations affected by discretization errors. This motivates the implementation of renormalization group (RG) techniques to find discretization-error-free operators. To this end, we introduce VAPOR, a variational quantum algorithm that decomposes operators into Pauli strings, identifies RG flow orbits, and determines fixed points of a naively discretized operator. We illustrate this using a toy model of a kinematic operator in a symmetry-restricted SU(2) Yang-Mills theory.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces VAPOR, a variational quantum algorithm for implementing Hamiltonian renormalization group flow on quantum computers. VAPOR decomposes operators into Pauli strings, identifies RG flow orbits, and locates fixed points of naively discretized operators; the method is illustrated on a toy model of a kinematic operator in a symmetry-restricted SU(2) Yang-Mills theory.

Significance. If the variational procedure reliably recovers discretization-error-free fixed points, the approach could provide a practical route to mitigating cutoff effects in Hamiltonian lattice gauge theory simulations on near-term quantum hardware, where classical resources remain limited.

major comments (1)
  1. [VAPOR algorithm and toy-model illustration] The central claim that VAPOR determines fixed points free of O(a) discretization errors rests on the assumption that the variational optimizer converges to the exact RG fixed-point operator rather than a noise- or ansatz-shifted spurious minimum. No analysis or numerical evidence is provided that the cost-function minimum coincides with the true fixed point under realistic hardware noise or for the chosen ansatz in the SU(2) toy model.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting an important point regarding the variational convergence. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [VAPOR algorithm and toy-model illustration] The central claim that VAPOR determines fixed points free of O(a) discretization errors rests on the assumption that the variational optimizer converges to the exact RG fixed-point operator rather than a noise- or ansatz-shifted spurious minimum. No analysis or numerical evidence is provided that the cost-function minimum coincides with the true fixed point under realistic hardware noise or for the chosen ansatz in the SU(2) toy model.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not contain an explicit analysis or numerical evidence demonstrating that the variational optimizer converges to the exact RG fixed point (rather than a spurious minimum) under realistic hardware noise or for the specific ansatz employed in the SU(2) toy model. The current results are restricted to a classical simulation of the ideal, noise-free case, where the algorithm recovers the expected fixed point of the kinematic operator. We will revise the manuscript to include a dedicated discussion of the variational landscape in the ideal setting, the assumptions underlying convergence to the true fixed point, and explicit caveats concerning the effects of hardware noise and ansatz expressivity. The central claim will be tempered to reflect the scope of the present toy-model illustration. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: method introduces VAPOR as a new variational algorithm without equations reducing to fitted inputs or self-citations

full rationale

The abstract and description present VAPOR as a variational quantum algorithm that decomposes operators, identifies RG flow orbits, and locates fixed points of a discretized operator in a toy model. No equations, fitting procedures, or load-bearing self-citations are visible. The derivation chain is not shown to reduce any claimed prediction or fixed point to its own inputs by construction. The reader's assessment confirms absence of such reductions in the abstract, and the provided text contains no self-definitional steps, fitted-input predictions, or ansatz smuggling. This is a standard case of a self-contained proposal whose validity rests on external verification rather than internal redefinition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the algorithm description does not introduce new particles or forces.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5610 in / 1105 out tokens · 19849 ms · 2026-06-27T10:38:57.430495+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    or LGT vacua [61]). In the noise-dominated era, this minimizes systematic errors (e.g., constant biases), as the algorithm probes the operator over a sufficiently large set{|Ω I ⟩}without depending heavily on precise state preparation details. These features enable an efficient and scalable imple- mentation of the RG on near-term quantum hardware, providi...

  2. [2]

    Jaffe and E

    A. Jaffe and E. Witten, Quantum yang–mills the- ory, The Millennium Prize Problems (2000), available athttps://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems/ yang-mills-and-mass-gap

    2000

  3. [3]

    Haag, On quantum field theories, Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Matematisk-Fysiske Meddelelser29, 1 (1955)

    R. Haag, On quantum field theories, Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Matematisk-Fysiske Meddelelser29, 1 (1955)

    1955

  4. [4]

    R. F. Streater and A. S. Wightman, Pct, spin and statis- tics, and all that, Princeton University Press (2000). 7 Note that identifying orbits depends on the choice of embedding map and basis. The filling kernel and Pauli mapping used in our toy model provide just one choice benefiting from a feasible orbit decomposition

    2000

  5. [5]

    K. G. Wilson, Confinement of quarks, Physical Review D10, 2445 (1974)

    1974

  6. [6]

    Dapor and K

    A. Dapor and K. Liegener, Cosmological effective hamil- tonian from full loop quantum gravity dynamics, Physics Letters B785, 506 (2018), arXiv:1706.09833 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Ashtekar, T

    A. Ashtekar, T. Pawlowski, and P. Singh, Quantum na- ture of the big bang, Physical Review Letters96, 141301 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0602086 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    Brower, N

    R. Brower, N. Christ, C. DeTar, R. Edwards, and P. Mackenzie, Lattice qcd application development within the us doe exascale computing project, EPJ Web of Conferences175, 09010 (2018)

    2018

  9. [9]

    E. Rico, T. Pichler, M. Dalmonte, P. Zoller, and S. Montangero, Tensor networks for lattice gauge the- ories and atomic quantum simulation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 201601 (2014). 7

    2014

  10. [10]

    Yang and et al., Observation of gauge invariance in a 71-site bose–hubbard quantum simulator, Nature587, 392–396 (2020)

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

    2020

  11. [11]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Optimal hamiltonian sim- ulation by quantum signal processing, Physical Review Letters118, 010501 (2017)

    2017

  12. [12]

    J. C. Halimeh, M. Aidelsburger, F. Grusdt, P. Hauke, and B. Yang, Cold-atom quantum simulators of gauge theories, Nature Physics21, 25 (2025), arXiv:2310.12201 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    J. C. Halimeh, N. Mueller, J. Knolle, Z. Papi´ c, and Z. Davoudi, Quantum simulation of out-of- equilibrium dynamics in gauge theories, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.03586 (2025), arXiv:2509.03586 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    K. G. Wilson, The renormalization group: Critical phe- nomena and the kondo problem, Reviews of Modern Physics47, 773 (1975)

    1975

  15. [15]

    L. P. Kadanoff, Scaling laws for ising models neart c, Physics Physique Fizika2, 263 (1966)

    1966

  16. [16]

    Janas, Inductive limit of operators and its applications, Studia Mathematica90, 87 (1988)

    J. Janas, Inductive limit of operators and its applications, Studia Mathematica90, 87 (1988)

    1988

  17. [17]

    R. V. Kadison and J. R. Ringrose, Fundamentals of the theory of operator algebras, volume ii: Advanced theory, American Mathematical Society (1997)

    1997

  18. [18]

    Glimm and A

    J. Glimm and A. Jaffe, Quantum physics: A functional integral point of view, Springer-Verlag (1987)

    1987

  19. [19]

    H. D. Politzer, Reliable perturbative results for strong interactions?, Physical Review Letters30, 1346 (1973)

    1973

  20. [20]

    K. G. Wilson and M. E. Fisher, Critical exponents in 3.99 dimensions, Physical Review Letters28, 240 (1972)

    1972

  21. [21]

    Niemeijer and J

    T. Niemeijer and J. M. J. van Leeuwen, Wilson theory for 2-dimensional ising spin systems, Physica71, 17 (1974)

    1974

  22. [22]

    Rastgoo and M

    S. Rastgoo and M. Requardt, Emergent Space-Time via a Geometric Renormalization Method, Phys. Rev. D94, 124019 (2016), arXiv:1606.08073 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  23. [23]

    Requardt and S

    M. Requardt and S. Rastgoo, The Structurally Dynamic Cellular Network and Quantum Graphity Approaches to Quantum Gravity and Quantum Geometry - A Re- view and Comparison, J. Cell. Automata10, 341 (2015), arXiv:1501.00391 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  24. [24]

    Hasenfratz and F

    P. Hasenfratz and F. Niedermayer, Perfect lattice action for asymptotically free theories, Nuclear Physics B414, 785 (1994), arXiv:hep-lat/9308004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  25. [25]

    Polchinski, Renormalization and effective lagrangians, Nuclear Physics B231, 269 (1984)

    J. Polchinski, Renormalization and effective lagrangians, Nuclear Physics B231, 269 (1984)

    1984

  26. [26]

    T. Lang, K. Liegener, and T. Thiemann, Hamilto- nian renormalisation i: derivation from osterwalder- schrader reconstruction, Classical and Quantum Gravity 35, 245011 (2018)

    2018

  27. [27]

    Liegener and T

    K. Liegener and T. Thiemann, Hamiltonian renormaliza- tion v: Free vector bosons, Front. Astron. Space Sci.7, 547550 (2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    Bahr and K

    B. Bahr and K. Liegener, Towards exploring features of hamiltonian renormalisation relevant for quantum grav- ity, Classical and Quantum Gravity39, 075010 (2022)

    2022

  29. [29]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nature Communications5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  30. [30]

    J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, The theory of variational hybrid quantum- classical algorithms, New Journal of Physics18, 023023 (2016)

    2016

  31. [31]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, W.-K. Mok, S. Sim, L.-C. Kwek, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms, Reviews of Modern Physics94, 015004 (2022)

    2022

  32. [32]

    Balaban, Propagators and renormalization transfor- mations for lattice gauge theories

    T. Balaban, Propagators and renormalization transfor- mations for lattice gauge theories. i, Communications in Mathematical Physics95, 17 (1984)

    1984

  33. [33]

    Balaban, Propagators and renormalization transfor- mations for lattice gauge theories

    T. Balaban, Propagators and renormalization transfor- mations for lattice gauge theories. ii, Communications in Mathematical Physics96, 223 (1984)

    1984

  34. [34]

    Aizenman, Proof of the triviality ofϕ 4 d field theory and some mean-field features of ising models ford >4, Physical Review Letters47, 1 (1981)

    M. Aizenman, Proof of the triviality ofϕ 4 d field theory and some mean-field features of ising models ford >4, Physical Review Letters47, 1 (1981)

    1981

  35. [35]

    L. D. Landau, A. A. Abrikosov, and I. M. Khalatnikov, On the removal of infinities in quantum electrodynamics, Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR95, 497 (1954)

    1954

  36. [36]

    Cerezo et al., Variational quantum algorithms, Nature Rev

    M. Cerezo et al., Variational quantum algorithms, Nature Rev. Phys.3, 625 (2021), arXiv:2012.09265 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Cochran and et al., Visualizing dynamics of charges and strings in (2+1)d lattice gauge theories, Nature642, 315 (2025)

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

    2025

  38. [38]

    Joshi, Y

    R. Joshi, Y. Tian, K. Hemery, N. S. Srivatsa, J. J. Os- borne, H. Dreyer, E. Rinaldi, and J. C. Halimeh, Ob- servation of genuine 2 + 1d string dynamics in a u(1) lattice gauge theory with a tunable plaquette term on a trapped-ion quantum computer (2026), arXiv:2604.07436 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    K. Xu, U. Borla, K. Hemery, R. Joshi, H. Dreyer, E. Ri- naldi, and J. C. Halimeh, Observation of glueball ex- citations and string breaking in a 2 + 1dZ 2 lattice gauge theory on a trapped-ion quantum computer (2026), arXiv:2604.07435 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    Kogut and L

    J. Kogut and L. Susskind, Hamiltonian formulation of wilson’s lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D11, 395 (1975)

    1975

  41. [41]

    H. J. Rothe, Lattice Gauge Theories : An Introduction (Fourth Edition), World Scientific Publishing Company (2012)

    2012

  42. [42]

    Bonzom, M

    V. Bonzom, M. Dupuis, F. Girelli, and Q. Pan, Local observables in su q(2) lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D 107, 026014 (2023)

    2023

  43. [43]

    A. N. Krylov, On the numerical solution of the equation by which in technical questions frequencies of small os- cillations of material systems are determined, Izvestiya Akademii Nauk SSSR (1931)

    1931

  44. [44]

    SIAM, 2011.doi:10.1137/1.9781611970739

    Y. Saad, Numerical methods for large eigenvalue prob- lems, SIAM 10.1137/1.9781611970739 (2011)

    work page doi:10.1137/1.9781611970739 2011

  45. [45]

    B. T. Gard, L. Zhu, G. S. Barron, N. J. Mayhall, S. E. Economou, and E. Barnes, Efficient symmetry- preserving state preparation circuits for the variational quantum eigensolver algorithm, npj Quantum Informa- tion6(2019)

    2019

  46. [46]

    C. N. Yang and R. L. Mills, Conservation of isotopic spin and isotopic gauge invariance, Phys. Rev.96, 191 (1954)

    1954

  47. [47]

    Ashtekar and E

    A. Ashtekar and E. Bianchi, A short review of loop quan- tum gravity, Reports on Progress in Physics84, 042001 (2021)

    2021

  48. [48]

    Gambini and J

    R. Gambini and J. Pullin, Loops, Knots, Gauge Theories (Cambridge University Press, 2000)

    2000

  49. [49]

    Rovelli, Quantum gravity, Cambridge University Press (2004)

    C. Rovelli, Quantum gravity, Cambridge University Press (2004). 8

    2004

  50. [50]

    D’Andrea, C

    I. D’Andrea, C. W. Bauer, D. M. Grabowska, and M. Freytsis, New basis for hamiltonian su(2) simulations, Phys. Rev. D109, 074501 (2024)

    2024

  51. [51]

    Zohar, A

    E. Zohar, A. Farace, B. Reznik, and J. I. Cirac, Digital quantum simulation ofz 2 lattice gauge theories with dy- namical fermionic matter, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 070501 (2017)

    2017

  52. [52]

    Fontana, M

    P. Fontana, M. Miranda-Riaza, and A. Celi, Efficient finite-resource formulation of non-abelian lattice gauge theories beyond one dimension, Phys. Rev. X15, 031065 (2025)

    2025

  53. [53]

    Ashtekar and J

    A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Background indepen- dent quantum gravity: a status report, Classical and Quantum Gravity21, R53?R152 (2004)

    2004

  54. [54]

    Kami´ nski and K

    W. Kami´ nski and K. Liegener, Symmetry restriction and its application to gravity, Classical and Quantum Gravity 38, 065013 (2021)

    2021

  55. [55]

    Liegener, S

    K. Liegener, S. Rastgoo, and J. Roberts, Spherically sym- metric gravity on a graph i: Theoretical foundations (2026), arXiv:2602.23308 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    D. A. Varshalovich, A. N. Moskalev, and V. K. Kherson- skii, Quantum Theory of Angular Momentum (World Scientific, Singapore, 1988)

    1988

  57. [57]

    Brink and G

    D. Brink and G. Satchler, Angular Momentum (2023)

    2023

  58. [58]

    Balcar and S

    E. Balcar and S. Lovesey, Introduction to the Graphical Theory of Angular Momentum: Case Studies, Springer Tracts in Modern Physics 10.1007/978-3-642-03118-2 (2009)

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03118-2 2009

  59. [59]

    Kandala, A

    A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware- efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets, Nature549, 242 (2017), arXiv:1704.05018 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  60. [60]

    J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Bab- bush, and H. Neven, Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes, Nature Communications9, 4812 (2018)

    2018

  61. [61]

    J. H. Romeiro, Scalable single-step generation of w states in 2d superconducting qubit lattices, arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.18962 (2026), arXiv:2605.18962 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    Liegener, D

    K. Liegener, D. Mattern, A. Korobov, L. Kr¨ uger, M. Geiger, M. Singh, L. Huang, C. Schneider, F. Roy, and S. Filipp, Enhancing Variational Quantum Eigen- solvers for SU(2) Lattice Gauge Theory via Systematic State Preparation, (2026), arXiv:2603.03799 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  63. [63]

    Gily´ en, Y

    A. Gily´ en, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: Exponen- tial improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics, arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.01838 (2018), arXiv:1806.01838 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  64. [64]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, An Introduction to quantum field theory, Addison-Wesley (1995)

    1995

  65. [65]

    Bojowald, Canonical gravity and applications: Cos- mology, black holes, and quantum gravity, Cambridge University Press (2010)

    M. Bojowald, Canonical gravity and applications: Cos- mology, black holes, and quantum gravity, Cambridge University Press (2010)

    2010

  66. [66]

    Thiemann, Modern canonical quantum general rela- tivity, Cambridge University Press (2007)

    T. Thiemann, Modern canonical quantum general rela- tivity, Cambridge University Press (2007)

    2007

  67. [67]

    Thiemann, Quantum spin dynamics (qsd): Vii

    T. Thiemann, Quantum spin dynamics (qsd): Vii. sym- plectic structures and continuum lattice formulations of gauge field theories, Classical and Quantum Gravity18, 3293?3338 (2001)

    2001

  68. [68]

    Peter and H

    F. Peter and H. Weyl, Die Vollst¨ andigkeit der primitiven Darstellungen einer geschlosse- nen kontinuierlichen Gruppe, Math. Ann. 97 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01447892 (1927)

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01447892 1927

  69. [69]

    E. P. Wigner, On the matrices which reduce the kro- necker products of representations of s. r. groups, in Quantum Theory of Angular Momentum, edited by L. C. Biedenharn and H. Van Dam (Academic Press, New York, 1965) pp. 87–133

    1965

  70. [70]

    Bambi, L

    C. Bambi, L. Modesto, and I. Shapiro, Handbook of Quantum Gravity, Springer (2024)

    2024

  71. [71]

    Ashtekar and J

    A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Differential geometry on the space of connections via graphs and projective limits, Journal of Geometry and Physics17, 191 (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9412073

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  72. [72]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information, Cambridge University Press (2010)

    2010

  73. [73]

    W. E. ARNOLDI, The principle of minimized iterations in the solution of the matrix eigenvalue problem, Quar- terly of Applied Mathematics9, 17 (1951)

    1951

  74. [74]

    D. A. Fedorov, B. Peng, N. Govind, and Y. Alexeev, VQE method: a short survey and recent developments, Mater. Theor.6, 2 (2022), arXiv:2103.08505 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  75. [75]

    T. Bian, D. Murphy, R. Xia, A. Daskin, and S. Kais, Quantum computing methods for electronic states of the water molecule, Molecular Physics117, 2069 (2019)

    2069

  76. [76]

    I. G. Ryabinkin, T.-C. Yen, S. N. Genin, and A. F. Iz- maylov, Qubit coupled cluster method: A systematic ap- proach to quantum chemistry on a quantum computer., Journal of chemical theory and computation14 12, 6317 (2018)

    2018

  77. [77]

    A. G. Taube and R. J. Bartlett, New perspectives on unitary coupled-cluster theory, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry106, 3393 (2006)

    2006

  78. [78]

    Farhi, J

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  79. [79]

    Hamiltonian Formulation and Spin-Network Basis To construct a quantum simulation, we rely on the Hamiltonian formulation of LGT, originally introduced by Kogut and Susskind [39]. We consider a non-Abelian SU(2) gauge theory, which is distinguished by the non- commutativity of its local symmetry generators [63], [τ I , τ J] =if IJ Kτ K (A1) withI, J, Kinte...

  80. [80]

    To this end, letγ M denote a 2D cubic lattice with periodic vertex setZ M ×Z M

    Toy model To construct a computationally tractable model for quantum simulation while retaining the core SU(2) dy- namics, we reduce the general formalism to a simplified geometry exhibiting homogeneity along one spatial di- rection. To this end, letγ M denote a 2D cubic lattice with periodic vertex setZ M ×Z M. At the classical level, discretizing an SU(...

Showing first 80 references.