Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 123 references

Dynamic Induction of Lattice Gauge Theories on a Quantum Computer

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding single-qubit Gauss-law terms to a simple spin chain dynamically generates a U(1) lattice gauge theory, cutting entangling-gate depth per Trotter step from 35 to 7.

desk verdict Dynamic induction is a genuinely new idea with a real circuit-depth advantage, but the claimed quantitative agreement with the target LGT rests on post-selected MPS benchmarks and hardware data, so the evidence is thinner than the abstract suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02756 v1 pith:YEJOZ3ZI submitted 2026-08-03 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gashep-lat

Barbara Andrade , Declan Millar , Lewis Anderson , Vincent R. Pascuzzi , Maciej Lewenstein , Ivano Tavernelli , Jad C. Halimeh , Tobias Grass This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gashep-lat
keywords latticegaugetheoryquantumlinkmodelSchwingerdynamicalprotectionZenoeffectTrotterizationinvariancesimulation
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 show that a lattice gauge theory can be induced dynamically rather than programmed directly. The authors start from a three-body spin Hamiltonian (the XXX model) that is easy to run on quantum hardware but has no gauge symmetry, and they add single-qubit terms proportional to the Gauss-law generators. In the right parameter window, these terms energetically confine the evolution to the physical sector, so that the effective dynamics matches the spin-1/2 U(1) quantum link Schwinger model. The simplification is large: the two-qubit gate depth per Trotter step drops from 35 to 7, and the protected dynamics reproduces the target real-time behavior on a 101-qubit superconducting processor over eight Trotter steps. If the mechanism holds, Gauss's law is reframed from a constraint to be enforced into a resource for building gauge theories from simpler interactions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the single-qubit gauge-protection Hamiltonian $V H_G = V \sum_{j=0}^{N_f-1} c_j G_j$, where $G_j = \frac{(-1)^j}{2}(\sigma^z_j - \tau^z_{j-1,j} - \tau^z_{j,j+1} - 1)$ is the U(1) Gauss-law generator at matter site $j$. Because $H_G$ is linear in the generators, it costs only single-qubit $R_z$ rotations; with $V=4.5$ and $c_j=(-1)^{j+1}$ it energetically detunes every transition that would violate Gauss's law, so the dynamics of $H_{\mathrm{XXX}} + V H_G$ is projected onto the physical sector through a quantum-Zeno mechanism. The second load-bearing piece is the circuit identity for $\exp(-i\Delta t\, \sigma^x_j \sigma^x_{j+1} \sigma^x_{j+2})$: four CNOT gates and one $R_x$ rotation, with all XXX terms commuting, so a second-order Trotter step adds no extra entangling depth, yielding a two-qubit depth of 7 instead of 35 for the full quantum link model.

What would settle it

Run the same 101-qubit dynamically induced circuits with the protection term turned off ($V=0$) and apply the identical post-selection rule of discarding shots with more than two gauge violations; if the retained $V=0$ shots reproduce the QLM trajectory as well as the $V=4.5$ shots do, the reported agreement would be a selection artifact rather than evidence of dynamical gauge protection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that a U(1) lattice gauge theory can be dynamically induced rather than directly implemented. Starting from the three-body XXX Hamiltonian $H_{\mathrm{XXX}} = J \sum_j \sigma^x_j \tau^x_{j,j+1} \sigma^x_{j+1} - m \sum_j \sigma^z_j$, adding a single-qubit gauge-protection term $V H_G = V \sum_j c_j G_j$ with $V=4.5$ and $c_j = (-1)^{j+1}$ confines the Trotterized time evolution to the zero-Gauss-law sector, and within that sector the effective dynamics reproduces the spin-1/2 U(1) quantum link Schwinger model. The two-qubit gate depth per Trotter step drops from 35 to 7 because the mutually commuting XXX blocks add no internal Trotter error and the protection term is implemented with single-qubit rotations. On a 101-qubit chain of a 156-qubit superconducting processor, the mean electric field after quenches from vacuum and fully filled states matches the target quantum-link-model trajectory in matrix-product-state benchmarks over eight Trotter steps (total time $t=2$) for masses $m=0$, $0.5$, and $1$; the hardware agreement is established for post-selected shots, with retention fractions falling below 0.1 percent at late times.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the chosen protection parameters ($V=4.5$, $\Delta t=0.25$, $c_j=(-1)^{j+1}$) place the Trotterized evolution in a quantum-Zeno regime in which $H_{\mathrm{XXX}} + V H_G$ is effectively confined to the zero-Gauss-law sector and therefore close to $H_{\mathrm{QLM}}$ over the observables, times, and sizes studied—a premise supported by MPS simulations of the mean electric field and gauge violation, and by hardware data that is post-selected with retention fractions falling to 0.06 percent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same single-qubit protection recipe extends to higher-dimensional U(1) quantum link models: adding dimensions only adds local terms inside each Gauss-law generator, so no new entangling gates are required, whereas integrating out matter fields through Gauss's law quickly becomes nonlocal in $2+1$ dimensions.
  • The reduced circuit depth (one entangling layer per Trotter step) makes longer real-time evolution feasible on near-term processors than a direct QLM implementation at the same error rate.
  • Because the 101-qubit encoding carries redundant gauge information, Gauss's law can serve as an error-detection and post-selection tool; the induced implementation matched the target better than the smaller PXP implementation, despite starting from noisier raw data.
  • Gauge protection suppresses coherent transitions into gauge-violating sectors but does not correct incoherent noise: adding the protection layer to the full QLM circuit produced no significant improvement, consistent with the protection mechanism being a coherent detuning effect.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test the paper does not report is whether the protected dynamics matches the QLM for observables beyond the mean electric field, such as two-point correlation functions or entanglement entropy; if the Zeno projection is the right description, those should also agree, and the existing MPS circuits could be sampled for them without new hardware.
  • The very low post-selection retention (as low as 0.06 percent at the latest times) leaves open the possibility that the reported hardware agreement reflects conditioning on rare clean shots; running the same circuits with the protection term off and the identical post-selection rule would settle this.
  • The protection parameters $V=4.5$ and $\Delta t=0.25$ were chosen empirically; mapping the boundary of the Zeno regime as a function of $V$, $\Delta t$, and system size would turn the demonstration into a quantitative design principle for other gauge theories.
  • The approach suggests a general recipe: any simple interaction whose matrix elements connect different gauge sectors in a controlled way may be promoted to a target gauge theory by adding single-body generator terms, provided a Zeno separation exists.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper introduces a scheme to "dynamically induce" a U(1) lattice gauge theory: instead of implementing the three-body gauge-matter interaction of the spin-1/2 quantum link Schwinger model directly, the authors use a three-body XXX interaction plus single-qubit terms proportional to the Gauss-law generators, with the claim that for suitable protection strength V and Trotter step Δt the protected dynamics matches the target QLM. They support this with MPS simulations and a 101-qubit experiment on an IBM processor, reporting that the mean electric field tracks the target QLM over eight Trotter steps while the two-qubit gate depth per Trotter step is reduced from 35 to 7.

Significance. If the reported agreement is robust, the work is a valuable conceptual and practical advance: it repositions gauge protection as a Hamiltonian-engineering resource rather than a symmetry-preserving constraint, and it demonstrates a large-scale circuit-depth reduction on a 101-qubit processor. The paper is also careful to choose V and Δt a priori, to provide explicit gate decompositions, and to support the circuit analysis with MPS simulations. The main limitation is that the experimental and benchmark evidence for quantitative agreement currently rests on post-selected samples with retention rates as low as 0.06-0.12% at the longest times, so the central claim needs additional un-post-selected analysis before the result can be fully credited.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods: Post-selection and error analysis; Matrix-product-state simulations; Figs. 3-4] The central claim that the dynamically induced LGT reproduces the target QLM is not separated from the effects of post-selection. According to the Methods, the MPS benchmarks for the dLGT are obtained by sampling the ideal circuit and discarding samples with more than two Gauss-law violations, using the same cutoff as the hardware data, while the solid QLM target trajectory is computed without any filter. At t=2, the dLGT retains only 0.06-0.12% of shots (Tables I and II). Because the filter restricts the surviving distribution to near-physical configurations, it can bias the mean electric field toward the QLM value even if the raw protected dynamics differs from the target. The paper never reports the un-post-selected MPS expectation value of <E> for the dLGT circuit, nor the un-post-selected hardware data. Please add these comparisons; they are necessary to attribute the observed agreement to the protection mechanism rather than to the selection rule.
  2. [Fig. 2; Methods: Post-selection and error analysis] It is unclear whether the gauge-violation data in Fig. 2 are computed from raw measurement outcomes or from post-selected samples. If the >2-violation cutoff is applied before evaluating <epsilon_G>, then the small gauge violation shown for the hardware markers and the dashed MPS lines is partly a consequence of the selection rule itself, since every retained sample has at most two nonzero G_j. The text states that "the data from the quantum simulation measurements closely follows the MPS predictions of the gauge-protected system" but does not specify the preprocessing. Please state explicitly whether Fig. 2 uses raw or post-selected data and, if the latter, provide the raw gauge-violation evolution for both the hardware and the MPS benchmark.
  3. [Discussion; Figs. 3-4; Tables I-II] The comparison between the dynamically induced LGT and the PXP implementation is confounded by very different post-selection rates: at t=2 the dLGT retains 0.06-0.12% of shots whereas the PXP retains 23-67% (Tables I and II). The Discussion concludes that the dLGT "matches better the target theory" partly because of the large redundancy of the encoding and post-selection, but the apparent advantage may simply reflect the much more aggressive filtering of the dLGT data. To support the conclusion that the dynamically induced scheme is the better implementation, the paper should compare un-post-selected observables for both schemes, or at least report the ideal-circuit retention rates for the MPS benchmarks and show how the dLGT results depend on the post-selection cutoff.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; Fig. 1(e)] The factor-of-five depth comparison compares a second-order Trotter step of the dLGT (depth 7) with a first-order Trotter step of the full QLM (depth 35). Since the product formulas differ, the comparison at fixed Delta-t is not a comparison at fixed accuracy; please clarify this in the text.
  2. [Model; Quenchexperiments] The Hamiltonian parameters are not fully specified: the text sets V=4.5 and Delta-t=0.25 but does not state the value of J, which appears to be set to J=1 in the simulations and experiment. Please state J explicitly.
  3. [Tables I and II; Post-selection and error analysis] The standard deviations in Tables I and II are the standard deviations of three independent runs, not the standard error of the reported mean; with only three runs and post-selection fractions as low as 0.06%, the uncertainties in these error estimates are large. Please report the effective sample sizes and the standard error of the mean.
  4. [Quenchexperiments] Typo: "The analog dynamics" should read "The analogous dynamics" in the Quenchexperiments section.
  5. [Discussion] The phrase "quantitative agreement" is used without a defined error metric; please specify the distance measure between the measured and target trajectories that supports this claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: pre-chosen protection parameters, independent MPS benchmarks, and an external QLM target; post-selection is a validity concern rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central claim is that H_XXX + V H_G with V=4.5, Delta-t=0.25, and c_j=(-1)^(j+1) reproduces U(1) quantum-link Schwinger-model dynamics with reduced gate depth. No parameter is fitted to the target: V and the c_j sequence are fixed before the experiment and are motivated by the previously published protection scheme of Ref. [118], and the target QLM trajectory is computed independently by a high-resolution MPS simulation of H_QLM. The dLGT benchmarks are classical simulations of the actual Trotter circuits, and the hardware data are compared to these benchmarks, so the agreement is not enforced by definition. The citation of Ref. [118] is a self-citation because J.C. Halimeh is a coauthor, but it is supporting rather than load-bearing: the present paper independently verifies the suppression of gauge violations (Fig. 2) and the matching of the mean electric field (Figs. 3 and 4), and Ref. [118] is a published, externally checkable result whose stated assumptions do not include the present target claim. The post-selection procedure, which discards samples with more than two gauge violations, is applied equally to the hardware data and to the MPS benchmarks; the QLM target is not post-selected, so the comparison could in principle be affected by selection bias at the low retention rates reported in Tables I and II. However, this is a statistical-validity concern, not a circular reduction: no observable is defined in terms of the target result, and no fitted value is renamed as a prediction. There is no self-definitional construction, no fitted input relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness argument imported from the authors. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks, and its new quantitative content, the factor-of-five reduction in two-qubit gate depth and the observed agreement over eight Trotter steps, stands independently of any circular chain.

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

The central claim rests on two unproved pieces: the finite-window validity of the single-body protection mechanism imported from prior work, and the unstated effective-equivalence between the protected XXX dynamics and the QLM. The free protocol parameters (V, Delta-t, c_j, and the post-selection cutoff) are chosen by hand; none are fit to the experimental data, which keeps the circularity burden low.

free parameters (4)
  • Gauge protection strength V = 4.5
    Chosen in the experiment based on the optimal window for the Trotter step size; no first-principles derivation is given for why V=4.5 suffices for the XXX model. The induced dynamics matching the QLM depends on V being in this window.
  • Trotter step size Delta-t = 0.25
    Used in all hardware experiments and MPS benchmarks of the implemented circuits; the protection efficacy and Trotter error both depend on this value.
  • Protection coefficient sequence c_j = (-1)^(j+1)
    One of the 'generic choices' of Ref [118]; the paper does not test alternative sequences for this model.
  • Post-selection cutoff for dLGT = <=2 gauge violations
    Measurement outcomes with more than 2 gauge violations are discarded before computing observables; this cutoff determines the retention fractions (as low as 0.06%) and caps the measured gauge violation in Fig. 2.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Single-body gauge protection from Ref [118] suppresses gauge-violating transitions via quantum Zeno dynamics when V is in the appropriate window.
    The paper imports the protection mechanism of Halimeh et al. without deriving it; the effectiveness for the XXX model is then verified numerically via MPS.
  • domain assumption The XXX three-body interaction restricted to the physical (Gauss-law-respecting) subspace reproduces the QLM interaction processes.
    The paper states the XXX Hamiltonian 'maintains all the processes which are present also in the QLM target theory' but does not provide an explicit derivation that the projected effective Hamiltonian equals H_QLM; the extra gauge-violating processes are assumed to be suppressed by VHG.
  • standard math MPS simulations with truncation 1e-12 and up to 156 qubits are converged and representative of the ideal circuit dynamics.
    The Methods state convergence checks at thresholds 1e-8 and 1e-10, but the comparison to 51- and 101-qubit circuits relies on the numerical fidelity of the tensor network simulations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamic Induction of Lattice Gauge Theories on a Quantum Computer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YEJOZ3ZI

@misc{pith2026260802756,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamic Induction of Lattice Gauge Theories on a Quantum Computer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YEJOZ3ZI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02756}
}
read the original abstract

Gauge invariance is central to modern physics and underpins quantum simulations of lattice gauge theories (LGTs). Existing quantum simulation approaches employ Gauss's law either to energetically suppress gauge-violating processes in analog platforms or to detect and discard gauge-violating outcomes in digital devices. Here we introduce a third paradigm, in which Gauss's law is used to dynamically generate the gauge theory itself from a substantially simpler Hamiltonian. Starting from a readily programmable three-body XXX model, we employ experimentally efficient single-qubit U(1) gauge symmetry-generator terms that induce the dynamics of a U(1) LGT. We implement this approach using 101 qubits on a 156-qubit IBM quantum processor and observe real-time dynamics in quantitative agreement with the target LGT while reducing the entangling-gate depth per Trotter step by a factor of five compared with a direct implementation. Our results establish gauge protection as a resource for Hamiltonian engineering rather than merely symmetry preservation, opening a scalable resource-efficient route towards digital quantum simulations of increasingly complex gauge theories in higher spatial dimensions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02756 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

123 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Weinberg,The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol

    S. Weinberg,The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol. 1: Foundations(Cambridge University Press, 1995)

    1995

  2. [2]

    Gattringer and C

    C. Gattringer and C. Lang,Quantum Chromodynamics on the Lattice: An Introductory Presentation(Springer Science & Business Media, 2009)

    2009

  3. [3]

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

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

    2003

  4. [4]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder,An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory(Westview Press, 1995)

    1995

  5. [5]

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

    2012

  6. [6]

    Kogut and L

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

    1975

  7. [7]

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

    1979

  8. [8]

    HybQuant,

    Moreover, since the PXP dynamics does not create nearby excitations, we can use this gauge constraint for error-detection, although it is less restrictive than the gauge invariance of the full model. (iii) A third implementation, with the smallest2-qubit circuit depth of only7, is based on a dynamically induced gauge symmetry. Here we replace the three-qu...

    arXiv

Show all 123 references
  1. [9]

    K. G. Wilson, Confinement of quarks, Phys. Rev. D10, 7 2445 (1974)

    1974

  2. [10]

    K. G. Wilson, Quarks and strings on a lattice, inNew Phenomena in Subnuclear Physics: Part A, edited by A. Zichichi (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1977) pp. 69– 142

    1977

  3. [11]

    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

  4. [12]

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

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

    2010

  5. [13]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Quantum spin liquids: A re- view, Reports on Progress in Physics80, 016502 (2016- 11)

    2016

  6. [14]

    Senthil and M

    T. Senthil and M. P. A. Fisher,Z 2 gauge theory of electron fractionalization in strongly correlated systems, Phys. Rev. B62, 7850 (2000)

    2000

  7. [15]

    R. D. Sedgewick, D. J. Scalapino, and R. L. Sugar, Frac- tionalized phase in anXY−−Z 2 gauge model, Phys. Rev. B65, 054508 (2002)

    2002

  8. [16]

    F. M. Surace, P. P. Mazza, D. Banerjee, M. Dalmonte, P. Fendley, A. Scardicchio, and P. Silvi, Lattice Gauge Theories and String Dynamics in Rydberg Atom Quan- tum Simulators, Phys. Rev. X10, 021041 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    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 localiza- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 176601 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Brenes, M

    M. Brenes, M. Dalmonte, M. Heyl, and A. Scardic- chio, Many-body localization dynamics from gauge in- variance, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 030601 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    T.Budde, M.KrsticMarinkovic,andJ.C.PintoBarros, Quantum many-body scars for arbitrary integer spin in 2+1Dabelian gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D110, 094506 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Osborne, I

    J. Osborne, I. P. McCulloch, and J. C. Halimeh, Quan- tum many-body scarring in $2+1$d gauge theories with dynamical matter (2024), arXiv:2403.08858 [cond-mat, physics:hep-lat, physics:quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Cataldi, G

    G. Cataldi, G. Calajó, P. Silvi, S. Montangero, and J. C. Halimeh, Disorder-free localization and fragmentation in a non-abelian lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 170401 (2026)

    2026

  14. [22]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Many-body physics with ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 885 (2008)

    2008

  15. [23]

    Gross and I

    C. Gross and I. Bloch, Quantum simulations with ultra- cold atoms in optical lattices, Science357, 995 (2017), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aal3837

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum sim- ulation, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Byrnes and Y

    T. Byrnes and Y. Yamamoto, Simulating lattice gauge theories on a quantum computer, Physical Review A73, 022328 (2006)

    2006

  18. [26]

    Dalmonte and S

    M. Dalmonte and S. Montangero, Lattice gauge theory simulations in the quantum information era, Contem- porary Physics57, 388 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Zohar, J

    E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, Quantum simu- lations of lattice gauge theories using ultracold atoms in optical lattices, Reports on Progress in Physics79, 014401 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    S. V. Mathis, G. Mazzola, and I. Tavernelli, Toward scalable simulations of lattice gauge theories on quan- tum computers, Phys. Rev. D102, 094501 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Aidelsburger, L

    M. Aidelsburger, L. Barbiero, A. Bermudez, T. Chanda, A. Dauphin, D. González-Cuadra, P. a. R. Grzy- bowski, S. Hands, F. Jendrzejewski, J. Jünemann, G. Juzeli¯ unas, V. Kasper, A. Piga, S.-J. Ran, M. Rizzi, G. Sierra, L. Tagliacozzo, E. Tirrito, T. V. Zache, J. Za- krzewski, ...

    2021

  22. [30]

    E. Zohar, Quantum simulation of lattice gauge theories in more than one space dimension—requirements, chal- lenges and methods, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineer- ing Sciences380, 20210069 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Barata, X

    J. Barata, X. Du, M. Li, W. Qian, and C. A. Salgado, Medium induced jet broadening in a quantum com- puter, Phys. Rev. D106, 074013 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    N. Klco, A. Roggero, and M. J. Savage, Standard model physics and the digital quantum revolution: Thoughts about the interface, Reports on Progress in Physics85, 064301 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Barata, X

    J. Barata, X. Du, M. Li, W. Qian, and C. A. Salgado, Quantum simulation of in-medium qcd jets: Momen- tum broadening, gluon production, and entropy growth, Phys. Rev. D108, 056023 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Barata, W

    J. Barata, W. Gong, and R. Venugopalan, Realtime dy- namics of hyperon spin correlations from string frag- mentation in a deformed four-flavor Schwinger model (2024), arXiv:2308.13596 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    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

  28. [36]

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, N. Klco, and M. J. Sav- age, Quantum simulation of fundamental particles and forces, Nature Reviews Physics5, 420 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    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. Fernández-Combarro, E. Fuchs, L. Funcke, D. González-Cuadra, M. Grossi, J. C. Hal- imeh, Z. H...

    2024

  30. [38]

    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

  31. [39]

    T. D. Cohen, H. Lamm, S. Lawrence, and Y. Yamauchi (NuQS Collaboration), Quantum algorithms for trans- port coefficients in gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D104, 094514 (2021). 8

    2021

  32. [40]

    Barata and S

    J. Barata and S. Mukherjee, Probing celestial energy and charge correlations through real-time quantum sim- ulations: Insights from the Schwinger model, Phys. Rev. D111, L031901 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    K. Lee, F. Turro, and X. Yao, Quantum computing for energy correlators, Physical Review D111, 054514 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    Turro, A

    F. Turro, A. Ciavarella, and X. Yao, Classical and quan- tum computing of shear viscosity for $(2+1)d$ su(2) gauge theory, Physical Review D109, 114511 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

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

    2025

  36. [44]

    C. W. Bauer, Efficient use of quantum computers for collider physics, Journal of High Energy Physics2025, 108 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

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

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    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

  39. [47]

    Mildenberger, W

    J. Mildenberger, W. Mruczkiewicz, J. C. Halimeh, Z. Jiang, and P. Hauke, Confinement in a Z2 lattice gauge theory on a quantum computer, Nat. Phys.21, 312 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    C. A. Muschiket al., U(1) Wilson lattice gauge theories in digital quantum simulators, New J. Phys.19, 103020 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Joshi, M

    R. Joshi, M. Meth, J. C. Louw, J. J. Osborne, K. Mato, M. Ringbauer, and J. C. Halimeh, Efficient qudit circuit for quench dynamics of2 + 1d quantum link electrody- namics (2025), arXiv:2507.12589 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    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- ture534, 516 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    N. Klco, E. F. Dumitrescu, A. J. McCaskey, T. D. Mor- ris, R. C. Pooser, M. Sanz, E. Solano, P. Lougovski, and M. J. Savage, Quantum-classical computation of schwinger model dynamics using quantum computers, Physical Review A98, 032331 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    F. Görg, 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, Nature Physics15, 1161 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    Schweizer, F

    C. Schweizer, F. Grusdt, M. Berngruber, L. Barbiero, E. Demler, N. Goldman, I. Bloch, and M. Aidelsburger, Floquet approach toZ 2 lattice gauge theories with ul- tracold atoms in optical lattices, Nature Physics15, 1168 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    A. Mil, T. V. Zache, A. Hegde, A. Xia, R. P. Bhatt, M. K. Oberthaler, P. Hauke, J. Berges, and F. Jendrze- jewski, A scalable realization of local u(1) gauge invari- ance in cold atomic mixtures, Science367, 1128 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    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, Nature587, 392 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    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 emergentZ 2 gauge invariance in a superconducting circuit, Physical Review Research 4, L022060 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    G.-X. Su, H. Sun, A. Hudomal, J.-Y. Desaules, Z.-Y. Zhou, B. Yang, J. C. Halimeh, Z.-S. Yuan, Z. Papić, and J.-W. Pan, Observation of many-body scarring in a bose-hubbard quantum simulator, Physical Review Re- search5, 023010 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    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, Science377, 311 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    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 criti- cality in a lattice gauge simulator, Physical Review Let- ters131, 050401 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    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 microscopic confinement dynamics by a tunable topo- logicalθ-angle, Natu...

    2025

  53. [61]

    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 [cond-mat]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    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, Physical Review D 103, 094501 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    A. N. Ciavarella and I. A. Chernyshev, Preparation of the SU(3) lattice yang-mills vacuum with variational quantum methods, Physical Review D105, 074504 (2022)

    2022

  56. [64]

    A. N. Ciavarella, Quantum simulation of lattice qcd with improved hamiltonians, Physical Review D108, 094513 (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    A. N. Ciavarella and C. W. Bauer, Quantum simula- tion of SU(3) lattice yang-mills theory at leading order in large-${N}_{c}$ expansion, Physical Review Letters 133, 111901 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    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, Physical Review D110, 034515 (2024)

    2024

  59. [67]

    E. J. Gustafson, H. Lamm, and F. Lovelace, Primitive quantum gates for anSU(2)discrete subgroup: Binary octahedral, Physical Review D109, 054503 (2024)

    2024

  60. [68]

    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, Physical Review D110, 054505 (2024)

    2024

  61. [69]

    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 + 1dimensions. ii. single-baryonβ-decay in real time, Physical Review D107, 054513 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    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+1dimensions. i. axial gauge, Physical Review D107, 054512 (2023). 9

    2023

  63. [71]

    R.C.Farrell, M.Illa, A.N.Ciavarella,andM.J.Savage, Scalable circuits for preparing ground states on digital quantum computers: The schwinger model vacuum on 100 qubits, PRX Quantum5, 020315 (2024)

    2024

  64. [72]

    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, Physical Review D 109, 114510 (2024)

    2024

  65. [73]

    Z. Li, D. M. Grabowska, and M. J. Savage, Sequency hierarchy truncation (seqht) for adiabatic state prepara- tion and time evolution in quantum simulations (2024), arXiv:2407.13835 [quant-ph]

    2024

  66. [74]

    N. A. Zemlevskiy, Scalable quantum simulations of scat- tering in scalar field theory on 120 qubits, Physical Re- view D112, 034502 (2025)

    2025

  67. [75]

    Lewis and R

    R. Lewis and R. M. Woloshyn, A qubit model for u(1) lattice gauge theory (2019), arXiv:1905.09789 [hep-lat, physics:nucl-th, physics:quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Y. Y. Atas, J. Zhang, R. Lewis, A. Jahanpour, J. F. Haase, and C. A. Muschik, SU(2) hadrons on a quan- tum computer via a variational approach, Nature Com- munications12, 6499 (2021)

    2021

  69. [77]

    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. D106, 074502 (2022), arXiv:2205.09247 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Y. Y. Atas, J. F. Haase, J. Zhang, V. Wei, S. M.- L. Pfaendler, R. Lewis, and C. A. Muschik, Simu- lating one-dimensional quantum chromodynamics on a quantum computer: Real-time evolutions of tetra- and pentaquarks (2023), arXiv:2207.03473 [hep-lat, physics:hep-ph, physics:quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  71. [79]

    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., inProceed- ings of The 39th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory — PoS(LATTICE2022), Vol. 430 (SISSA Medialab, 202...

    2023

  72. [80]

    A. H. Z. Kavaki and R. Lewis, From square plaquettes to triamond lattices for SU(2) gauge theory, Communi- cations Physics7, 208 (2024)

    2024

  73. [81]

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

    2024

  74. [82]

    Angelides, P

    T. Angelides, P. Naredi, A. Crippa, K. Jansen, S. Kühn, I. Tavernelli, and D. S. Wang, First-order phase transi- tion of the Schwinger model with a quantum computer, npj Quantum Inf.11, 6 (2025), arXiv:2312.12831 [hep- lat]

    2025 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Gyawali, S

    G. Gyawali, S. Kumar, Y. D. Lensky, E. Rosenberg, A. Szasz, T. Cochran, R. Chen, A. H. Karamlou, K. Kechedzhi, J. Berndtsson, T. Westerhout, A. As- faw, D. Abanin, R. Acharya, L. A. Beni, T. I. Ander- sen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, N. Astrakhant- sev, J. Atalaya, R. Babbu...

    2025 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Mildenberger, W

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

    2025

  77. [85]

    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

  78. [86]

    Davoudi, C.-C

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

    2025 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Saner, O

    S. Saner, O. Băzăvan, D. J. Webb, G. Araneda, C. J. Ballance, R. Srinivas, D. M. Lucas, and A. Bermúdez, Real-time observation of aharonov-bohm interference in a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ lattice gauge theory on a hybrid qubit-oscillator quantum computer (2025), arXiv:2507.19588 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Xiang, P

    D.-S. Xiang, P. Zhou, C. Liu, H.-X. Liu, Y.-W. Zhang, D. Yuan, K. Zhang, B. Xu, M. Dalmonte, D.-L. Deng, and L. Li, Real-time scattering and freeze-out dy- namics in rydberg-atom lattice gauge theory (2025), arXiv:2508.06639 [cond-mat]. 10

    2025 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Wang, Z.-Y

    Z. Wang, Z.-Y. Ge, Y.-H. Shi, Z.-A. Wang, S.-Y. Zhou, H. Li, K. Zhao, Y.-S. Xu, W.-G. Ma, H.-T. Liu, C.-P. Fang, J.-C. Song, T.-M. Li, J.-C. Zhang, Y. Liu, C.- L. Deng, G. Xue, H. Yu, K. Xu, K. Huang, F. Nori, and H. Fan, Observation of inelastic meson scattering in a floquet ...

    2025 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Z. Li, M. Illa, and M. J. Savage, A Framework for Quan- tum Simulations of Energy-Loss and Hadronization in Non-Abelian Gauge Theories: SU(2) Lattice Gauge Theory in 1+1D (2025), arXiv:2512.05210 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  83. [91]

    D. K. Mark, F. M. Surace, T. Schuster, A. L. Shaw, W. Gong, S. Choi, and M. Endres, Observation of bal- listic plasma and memory in high-energy gauge theory dynamics (2025), arXiv:2510.11679 [quant-ph]

    2025

  84. [92]

    Froland, D

    H. Froland, D. M. Grabowska, and Z. Li, Simulating fully gauge-fixed su(2) hamiltonian dynamics on digital quantum computers (2025), arXiv:2512.22782 [quant- ph]

    2025

  85. [93]

    Hudomal, A

    A. Hudomal, A. Daniel, T. S. do Espirito Santo, M. Kornjača, T. Macrì, J. C. Halimeh, G.-X. Su, A. Balaž, and Z. Papić, Ergodicity breaking meets crit- icality in a gauge-theory quantum simulator (2025), arXiv:2512.23794 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2025

  86. [94]

    Hayata, Y

    T. Hayata, Y. Hidaka, and Y. Kikuchi, Onset of thermalization of q-deformed SU(2) Yang-Mills the- ory on a trapped-ion quantum computer (2026), arXiv:2601.13530 [hep-lat]

    2026

  87. [95]

    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

  88. [96]

    González-Cuadra, M

    D. González-Cuadra, M. Hamdan, T. V. Zache, B. Braverman, M. Kornjača, A. Lukin, S. H. Cantú, 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, Nature642, 321 (2025)

    2025

  89. [97]

    Crippa, K

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

    2024 arXiv

  90. [98]

    A. De, A. Lerose, D. Luo, F. M. Surace, A. Schuckert, E. R. Bennewitz, B. Ware, W. Morong, K. S. Collins, Z. Davoudi, A. V. Gorshkov, O. Katz, and C. Monroe, Observation of string-breaking dynamics in a quantum simulator (2024), arXiv:2410.13815 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Liu, W.-Y

    Y. Liu, W.-Y. Zhang, Z.-H. Zhu, M.-G. He, Z.-S. Yuan, and J.-W. Pan, String breaking mechanism in a lattice schwinger model simulator (2024), arXiv:2411.15443 [cond-mat]

    2024 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Alexandrou, A

    C. Alexandrou, A. Athenodorou, K. Blekos, G. Polykratis, and S. Kühn, Realizing string breaking dynamics in a Z2 lattice gauge theory on quan- tum hardware, Phys. Rev. D112, 114506 (2025), arXiv:2504.13760 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Cobos, J

    J. Cobos, J. Fraxanet, C. Benito, F. di Marcanto- nio, P. Rivero, K. Kapás, M. A. Werner, Ö. Leg- eza, A. Bermudez, and E. Rico, Real-Time Dynam- ics in a (2+1)-D Gauge Theory: The Stringy Na- ture on a Superconducting Quantum Simulator (2025), arXiv:2507.08088 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Ilčić, R

    F. Ilčić, R. Majumdar, E. Mathew, M. O. Ali, N. Earnest-Noble, and I. Raychowdhury, Observation of robust and coherent non-abelian hadron dynamics on noisy quantum processors (2026), arXiv:2602.18080 [hep-lat]

    2026 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Chen, Y.-T

    J.-W. Chen, Y.-T. Chen, G. Meher, B. Müller, A. Schäfer, and X. Yao, Thermalization of su(2) lattice gauge fields on quantum computers (2026), arXiv:2603.23948 [hep-lat]

    2026 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Balaji, C

    P. Balaji, C. Conefrey-Shinozaki, P. Draper, J. K. El- haderi, D. Gupta, L. Hidalgo, and A. Lytle, Pertur- bation theory, irrep truncations, and state preparation methods for quantum simulations of su(3) lattice gauge theory, (2025), arXiv:2509.25865 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Balaji, C

    P. Balaji, C. Conefrey-Shinozaki, P. Draper, J. K. El- haderi, D. Gupta, L. Hidalgo, A. Lytle, and E. Rinaldi, Quantum circuits for su(3) lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D112, 054511 (2025), arXiv:2503.08866 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  98. [106]

    K. Xu, U. Borla, K. Hemery, R. Joshi, H. Dreyer, E. Rinaldi, and J. C. Halimeh, Observation of glue- ball excitations and string breaking in a2 + 1dZ2 lat- tice gauge theory on a trapped-ion quantum computer (2026), arXiv:2604.07435 [hep-lat]. 11

    2026 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Joshi, Y

    R. Joshi, Y. Tian, K. Hemery, N. S. Srivatsa, J. J. Osborne, H. Dreyer, E. Rinaldi, and J. C. Halimeh, Observation of genuine2 + 1d string dynamics in a u(1)lattice gauge theory with a tunable plaque- tte term on a trapped-ion quantum computer (2026), arXiv:2604.07436 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Froland and D

    H. Froland and D. M. Grabowska, Measuring non- stabilizerness in an su(2) lattice gauge theory (2026), arXiv:2606.14842 [quant-ph]

    2026

  101. [109]

    Chandrasekharan and U.-J

    S. Chandrasekharan and U.-J. Wiese, Quantum link models: A discrete approach to gauge theories, Nucl. Phys. B492, 455 (1997)

    1997

  102. [110]

    Wiese, Ultracold quantum gases and lattice sys- tems: quantum simulation of lattice gauge theories, An- nalen der Physik525, 777 (2013)

    U.-J. Wiese, Ultracold quantum gases and lattice sys- tems: quantum simulation of lattice gauge theories, An- nalen der Physik525, 777 (2013)

    2013

  103. [111]

    Schwinger, Gauge Invariance and Mass, Physical Re- view125, 397 (1962)

    J. Schwinger, Gauge Invariance and Mass, Physical Re- view125, 397 (1962)

    1962

  104. [112]

    128, 2425 (1962)

    J.Schwinger,GaugeInvarianceandMass.II,Phys.Rev. 128, 2425 (1962)

    1962

  105. [113]

    Coleman, R

    S. Coleman, R. Jackiw, and L. Susskind, More About theMassiveSchwingerModel,AnnalsofPhysics93,267 (1975)

    1975

  106. [114]

    S.Coleman,Quantumsine-Gordonequationasthemas- sive Thirring model, Phys. Rev. D11, 2088 (1975)

    1975

  107. [115]

    Kasper, F

    V. Kasper, F. Hebenstreit, F. Jendrzejewski, M. K. Oberthaler, and J. Berges, Implementing quantum elec- trodynamics with ultracold atomic systems, New Jour- nal of Physics19, 023030 (2017)

    2017

  108. [116]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, and M. D. Lukin, Probing many-body dy- namics on a 51-atom quantum simulator, Nature551, 579 (2017)

    2017

  109. [117]

    C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Ser- byn, and Z. Papić, Weak ergodicity breaking from quan- tum many-body scars, Nature Physics14, 745 (2018)

    2018

  110. [118]

    Turner, A

    C. Turner, A. Michailidis, D. Abanin, M. Serbyn, and Z. Papić, Quantum scarred eigenstates in a Rydberg atom chain: Entanglement, breakdown of thermaliza- tion, and stability to perturbations, Physical Review B 98, 155134 (2018)

    2018

  111. [119]

    J. C. Halimeh, H. Lang, J. Mildenberger, Z. Jiang, and P. Hauke, Gauge-Symmetry Protection Using Single- Body Terms, PRX Quantum2, 040311 (2021)

    2021

  112. [120]

    Javadi-Abhari, M

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross,et al., Quantum computing with qiskit, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08810 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  113. [121]

    J. C. Halimeh, V. Kasper, and P. Hauke, Fate of lat- tice gauge theories under decoherence, arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.07848 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  114. [122]

    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, Physical Review D 106, L091502 (2022)

    2022

  115. [123]

    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 simula- tor, Communications Physics8, 273 (2025). 12 METHODS Quantum hardware and transpilation All quantum experiments were ...

    2025

Pith tools

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