Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Real-Time Scattering Processes with Continuous-Variable Quantum Computers

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A qumode lattice can simulate real-time scattering in (1+1)-dimensional φ⁴ theory, matching the free-field propagator and showing mass- and coupling-dependent collision dynamics with resources linear in lattice size.

desk verdict A clear CVQC qumode-lattice proposal whose interacting scattering evidence comes from a product-state classical emulator, so the quantum algorithm's interacting dynamics remain unvalidated. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01767 v2 pith:4BKLLU3R submitted 2025-02-03 quant-ph hep-lathep-phhep-th

Steven Abel , Michael Spannowsky , Simon Williams This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phhep-lathep-phhep-th MSC 81P6881T80 PACS 03.67.Lx11.10.-z11.15.Ha
keywords continuous-variablequantumcomputingqumodelatticescalarfieldtheoryreal-timescatteringphi-4Trotter-Suzukidecompositionnon-Gaussiangatestwo-pointcorrelationfunction
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

The paper proposes that real-time scattering in quantum field theory can be simulated on continuous-variable quantum computers by encoding the field value at each lattice site directly as the quadrature of a quantum harmonic oscillator (a qumode). It develops the dictionary between (1+1)-dimensional φ⁴ scalar field theory and a coupled-qumode lattice, then implements Trotterized evolution with Gaussian rotation gates, measurement-based non-Gaussian gates, and controlled-Z gates for the hopping terms. The framework is validated by reproducing the free-field retarded propagator from a delta-function impulse, and scattering simulations on 500 lattice sites show how varying mass slows and localizes wavepackets while varying coupling adds nonlinear distortion and energy dispersion. The proposed advantage is that no field digitization is needed, so quantum resources scale linearly with lattice size rather than carrying a per-site digitization overhead.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the qumode-lattice dictionary: the field $\hat{\phi}(x_n)$ is identified with the quadrature operator $\hat{q}_n$ of a quantum harmonic oscillator at site $n$, and the conjugate momentum with $\hat{p}_n$. This turns the field-theory Hamiltonian into a sum of single-qumode diagonal terms (a harmonic rotation gate $U_R$ and a non-Gaussian potential gate $U_V$, realized by a machine-learning-optimized, measurement-based evolver gadget) plus a ring of nearest-neighbour hopping terms that are exactly controlled-Z gates $\exp(i\hat{q}_a\hat{q}_b \theta)$. Trotterizing the evolution and applying the evolver gadget site-by-site and then the hopping gates produces the photonic circuit. For the classical emulator used to obtain the scattering results, the hopping step is approximated by projecting entanglement onto neighbouring qumodes in the style of TEBD, which is the approximation that lets 500 qumodes be evolved in about one hour on a laptop.

What would settle it

Run the same 500-site φ⁴ scattering parameters (for example, ω=0.6, λ=0.4, k=0.3, σ=0.09) with an independent method whose entanglement approximation is systematically improvable, such as a matrix-product-state simulation with bond dimension increased until the field and energy-density observables stop changing, and compare the wavepacket trajectories and energy distributions with the paper's plots. If the converged results differ visibly, the TEBD-style nearest-neighbour truncation, not the continuous-variable algorithm, is producing the claimed scattering physics. A cheaper test on a small lattice of about 20 sites would compare the same Trotterized evolution against exact diagonalization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes a Hamiltonian-lattice formulation in which the field $\phi(x_n)$ is literally the quadrature operator $\hat{q}_n$ of a qumode, so the field's continuous character is preserved inside the quantum machine. With this identification, the φ⁴ Hamiltonian splits into three pieces: a diagonal harmonic-oscillator rotation, a diagonal non-Gaussian potential gate, and nearest-neighbour hopping terms, each implemented by an experimentally realizable photonic operation within a Trotter step. The paper reports that the two-point correlation function generated by an approximate delta-function impulse matches the analytic retarded propagator $D_R = \frac{1}{2}\Theta(t-t')\Theta(\tau^2)J_0(m\tau)$ in the deep timelike region, and that two Gaussian wavepackets colliding on a 500-site lattice display the expected mass and coupling dependencies: larger mass slows and localizes the packets, and larger positive coupling delays the interaction and spreads energy. It concludes that the continuous-variable qumode lattice is a scalable, experimentally accessible route to real-time quantum field theory simulation.

Load-bearing premise

The interacting scattering results come from a classical emulator that approximates each hopping step by throwing away all entanglement except nearest-neighbour correlations (TEBD-style truncation), and the paper gives no convergence check showing that this truncation preserves the entanglement the φ⁴ interaction actually creates.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the framework is correct, real-time quantum field theory scattering can be studied on photonic continuous-variable hardware without the per-site digitization overhead that qubit-based lattice simulations carry.
  • The same three-part Trotter decomposition (rotation, non-Gaussian potential, hopping) applies to any scalar field theory with a local potential, so the circuit pattern extends beyond φ⁴ theory.
  • The free-field two-point function benchmark shows that the qumode lattice reproduces the light-cone causal structure of the continuum propagator, so the framework captures propagation, not just static spectra.
  • The demonstrated 500-qumode classical emulation suggests that near-term photonic devices, if the non-Gaussian ancilla states can be produced with sufficient fidelity, could run scattering simulations at lattice sizes where qubit approaches need tens of thousands of qubits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: the paper's interacting-scattering plots are produced only by the TEBD-truncated emulator; before the physics is trusted, those plots should be checked against a converged tensor-network calculation or a Hamiltonian-truncation benchmark at the same masses and couplings.
  • Extension: because the non-Gaussian gates are post-selected measurement-based operations, a real device run pays a success-probability overhead that the linear-resource estimate does not include; a concrete next calculation is the total post-selection cost per Trotter step.
  • Extension: the qumode dictionary is generic enough that gauge-field theories or higher-dimensional scalars could be encoded the same way, but the classical emulator used here would not scale, so those cases would be the first tests where a genuine quantum advantage over the emulator could appear.
  • Extension: the near-light-cone discrepancy between emulated and analytical propagator is attributed to the finite width of the initial impulse; varying lattice spacing and displacement width would give a quantitative convergence test of that explanation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a continuous-variable quantum computing (CVQC) framework for real-time simulation of (1+1)-dimensional φ^4 scalar field theory. Fields are mapped to a lattice of qumodes, the Hamiltonian is Trotterized into single-qumode rotation and non-Gaussian operations plus nearest-neighbor controlled-Z hopping gates, and the non-Gaussian gates are implemented via a measurement-based evolver gadget adapted from the authors' earlier work. The manuscript presents a classical emulator for the qumode lattice, validates free-field evolution against the analytic retarded propagator (Figs. 4 and 5), and reports φ^4 scattering simulations for varying mass and coupling (Figs. 6–8). It argues that the CVQC approach avoids field digitization and scales linearly in the number of lattice sites.

Significance. If the validity of the emulator and the proposed quantum circuit could be established, this would be a useful contribution: the free-field two-point function comparison is a genuine and non-trivial benchmark, the single-qumode Trotter check against Qibo in Fig. 1 is positive evidence, and the resource-scaling argument for avoiding field digitization is conceptually appealing. However, the central interacting results of Sec. 4.3 are produced by the classical emulator described in Sec. 2.2.1, whose entanglement truncation is not validated, and the paper's abstract and Sec. 4.1 overstate what has been demonstrated: the analytical validation is for a free Gaussian theory, not for the interacting CVQC dynamics. The paper therefore currently establishes a promising framework rather than a validated scattering simulation protocol.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.2.1, Eqs. (2.49)–(2.51)] The emulator defined by Eqs. (2.49)–(2.51) does not perform a TEBD-like truncation; it maps each single-qumode wavefunction to a linear combination of the previous single-qumode wavefunctions, so starting from the product state of Eq. (2.40) the state remains a product state at every Trotter step. Calling this an entanglement truncation is therefore misleading, since no Schmidt coefficients are kept or truncated. This matters because all interacting scattering results in Sec. 4.3, Figs. 6–8, are obtained from this emulator, so those plots describe a mean-field/product-state evolution and not the entangled qumode-lattice dynamics that the proposed quantum circuit would generate.
  2. [Sec. 4.1, Figs. 4 and 5] The validation against the analytic retarded propagator is presented as a validation of the CVQC framework, but it tests only the expectation value ⟨φ(x)⟩ in the free-field limit, where the equations of motion are linear and hence can be reproduced by the product-state emulator. It does not test the interacting non-Gaussian gates, the hopping-induced entanglement, or the hardware implementation. The abstract and Sec. 4.1 should be reworded to state that the analytical validation covers the free-field regime only, and that the interacting results require a separate validation.
  3. [Sec. 4.3, Figs. 6–8] No convergence checks or error bars are provided for the interacting scattering simulations. The dependence on the emulator truncation, the quadrature discretization M, the Fock truncation ℓ_trunc, and the Trotter step δt is not studied for the 500-site lattice. Since the physical conclusions about mass and coupling dependence rest entirely on these emulated profiles, the paper should include convergence checks against exact small-lattice evolution, higher-fidelity tensor-network or MPS simulations, or at minimum a systematic study of M, ℓ_trunc, and δt for a representative interacting configuration.
  4. [Sec. 5.1] The adiabatic state-preparation discussion is plausible but is not connected to the simulations actually performed. The scattering states used in Sec. 4.3 are initialized directly as non-relativistic Gaussian wavepackets on the decoupled lattice, not through the adiabatic ramp described here, and no estimate is given for the adiabatic time scale or its cost on the proposed device. A quantitative statement about how this preparation would be realized in the CVQC circuit would strengthen the central claim that the framework can prepare scattering states.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains the typo 'CQVC' instead of 'CVQC'; this should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. 3, Eq. (3.3)] Eq. (3.3) defines the controlled-Z gate with quadratures 'ˆq_a and ˆq_a', which appears to be a typo; it should read 'ˆq_a and ˆq_b' or equivalent.
  3. [Sec. 4, Eq. (4.1) vs Eq. (4.2)] The text defines the interaction as V_I(φ) = λφ^4 in Eq. (4.1), while Eq. (4.2) uses λ/4! φ^4 for the effective lattice potential. The factor of 4! discrepancy between the two definitions should be explained or fixed.
  4. [Sec. 4.1, Figs. 4 and 5] The comparison in Fig. 5 is described as showing 'good agreement', but no quantitative error metric is provided; a simple L2 or sup-norm difference away from the light cone would make the validation more concrete.
  5. [Sec. 4.3] The figures show field values and energy densities but do not indicate the normalization convention for the energy density; a brief definition would help readers interpret the color scales consistently between Figs. 7 and 8.
  6. [Sec. 5.2] The resource comparison with DVQC would be clearer if the gate counts were specified for the proposed circuit, not just the number of qumodes, since the evolver-gadget and the controlled-Z sequence have different costs per Trotter step.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the free-field propagator check is benchmarked against the analytic retarded propagator and the single-qumode Trotter evolution against the external Qibo simulator; scattering plots are emulator outputs, not fitted targets.

full rationale

The paper's central validation is the free-field two-point response compared with the analytic retarded propagator DR(x,t) (Eq. 4.4; Figs. 4-5), an external analytical benchmark that is not an input of the simulation. The lattice Hamiltonian and Trotterized evolution are standard discretizations, so agreement with DR tests the discretization and Trotter error rather than reproducing a fitted input. The single-qumode Trotter check is benchmarked against Qibo (Fig. 1), another external reference. The interacting scattering results (Figs. 6-8) are generated by the classical product-state emulator of Eqs. (2.49)-(2.51), and the mass/coupling dependence is read off from those outputs rather than imposed as a target, so the results are not equivalent to the inputs by construction. The emulator's entanglement truncation is unvalidated and arguably misdescribed as TEBD (it updates single-qumode wavefunctions and keeps the state product, with no bond-dimension truncation), but this is a correctness/validation gap, not circularity. The evolver gadget and non-Gaussian ancilla preparation are imported from the same authors' prior Ref. [11], yet this is ordinary self-citation of a published, externally testable scheme, and the paper's numerical validations do not depend on it. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's equations.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on standard Hamiltonian lattice discretization and Trotterization, plus three imported or assumed pieces: the decoupled-vacuum approximation for non-relativistic modes, the TEBD-like entanglement truncation in the classical emulator, and the measurement-based non-Gaussian gadget from the same authors' Ref [11]. Mass and coupling are physical inputs, not fitted parameters. No new particles, forces, or entities are postulated.

free parameters (6)
  • Trotter time step delta_t = 0.01
    Chosen for accuracy; validated only for single-qumode evolution in Fig 1, not for the full interacting 500-site lattice.
  • Lattice spacing a = 1 (set by hand)
    Set to a=1 in Sec 4; determines the UV cutoff and lattice dispersion, with no continuum extrapolation performed.
  • Wavepacket momentum k = 0.3
    Chosen in Sec 4.3 to satisfy the non-relativistic criterion k << omega; influences scattering kinematics.
  • Wavepacket width sigma = 0.09
    Chosen in Sec 4.3 to satisfy sigma << omega; controls the momentum spread and the effective interaction strength.
  • Quadrature discretization M = 200
    Used to discretize the quadrature variable in the classical emulator; convergence with respect to M is not demonstrated.
  • Fock truncation l_trunc = 80
    Used in Eq. (2.35) to approximate the rotation gate; stated as 'typically sufficient' without a convergence analysis.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The decoupled qumode vacuum is a valid stand-in for the QFT vacuum for non-relativistic modes (omega_alpha approximately omega).
    Used in Sec 2.1 (Eqs. 2.46-2.47) to justify product-state initial conditions; breaks down for ultra-relativistic modes.
  • ad hoc to paper Entanglement generated by hopping terms can be truncated to neighboring qumodes (TEBD-like projection) without changing computed observables.
    Introduced in Sec 2.2.1 (Eqs. 2.49-2.51); underpins all classical scattering results and is never benchmarked against exact methods.
  • domain assumption The measurement-based evolver gadget from Ref [11] implements the non-Gaussian evolution with acceptably small measurement-induced noise once the ancilla state is trained.
    Imported from the authors' prior work in Sec 3 and assumed for the quantum circuit; not re-verified on hardware in this paper.
  • standard math Trotter-Suzuki error remains small for delta_t=0.01 over total time T=350 on the full lattice.
    The standard O(delta_t^2) bound is stated in Eq. (2.24); it is checked only for a single qumode in Fig 1, not for the interacting 500-site lattice.
  • domain assumption Wavepackets with k=0.3 and sigma=0.09 satisfy the non-relativistic condition k, sigma << omega.
    Used in Sec 4.3 to justify the initial states; for the lowest mass omega=0.6, k/omega=0.5, so the condition is only marginally satisfied.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Real-Time Scattering Processes with Continuous-Variable Quantum Computers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4BKLLU3R

@misc{pith2026250201767,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Real-Time Scattering Processes with Continuous-Variable Quantum Computers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4BKLLU3R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01767}
}
abstract

We propose a framework for simulating the real-time dynamics of quantum field theories (QFTs) using continuous-variable quantum computing (CVQC). Focusing on ($1+1$)-dimensional $\varphi^4$ scalar field theory, the approach employs the Hamiltonian formalism to map the theory onto a spatial lattice, with fields represented as quantum harmonic oscillators. Using measurement-based quantum computing, we implement non-Gaussian operations for CQVC platforms. The study introduces methods for preparing initial states with specific momenta and simulating their evolution under the $\varphi^4$ Hamiltonian. Key quantum objects, such as two-point correlation functions, validate the framework against analytical solutions. Scattering simulations further illustrate how mass and coupling strength influence field dynamics and energy redistribution. Thus, we demonstrate CVQC's scalability for larger lattice systems and its potential for simulating more complex field theories.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Benchmarking trigonometric continuous-variable gate primitives with trapped ions

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Cosine gates exp(-iθ cos(c x̂)) in one- and two-mode versions were implemented on trapped-ion motional modes and benchmarked against noise-inclusive simulations via Fock-space transition probabilities.

  2. Continuous-variable photonic quantum extreme learning machines for fast collider-data selection

    quant-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A Gaussian photonic QELM with displacement encoding and quadrature/photon-number readout produces polynomial features that, under a linear readout, match or beat small MLPs on top-jet and Higgs classification.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Monte carlo calculation of the thermodynamic properties of a quantum model: A one-dimensional fermion lattice model,

    H. De Raedt and A. Lagendijk, “Monte carlo calculation of the thermodynamic properties of a quantum model: A one-dimensional fermion lattice model,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 46 (Jan,

    work page

  2. [2]

    A quantum monte carlo approach to many-body physics,

    W. von der Linden, “A quantum monte carlo approach to many-body physics,” Physics – 25 – Reports 220 no. 2, (1992) 53–162. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037015739290029Y

    arXiv 1992

  3. [3]

    Monte carlo simulations with indefinite and complex-valued measures,

    T. D. Kieu and C. J. Griffin, “Monte carlo simulations with indefinite and complex-valued measures,” Phys. Rev. E 49 (May, 1994) 3855–3859. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.49.3855

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.49.3855 1994

  4. [4]

    Quantum algorithms for quantum field theories,

    S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, “Quantum algorithms for quantum field theories,” Science 336 no. 6085, (2012) 1130–1133, [https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1217069]. https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1217069

    doi:10.1126/science.1217069 2012

  5. [5]

    Quantum computation of scattering in scalar quantum field theories,

    S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, “Quantum computation of scattering in scalar quantum field theories,” Quantum Info. Comput. 14 no. 11–12, (Sept., 2014) 1014–1080, [arXiv:1112.4833]

    arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    Real-time scattering of interacting quasiparticles in quantum spin chains,

    M. Van Damme, L. Vanderstraeten, J. De Nardis, J. Haegeman, and F. Verstraete, “Real-time scattering of interacting quasiparticles in quantum spin chains,” Physical Review Research 3 no. 1, (Jan., 2021) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.013078

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.3.013078 2021

  7. [7]

    Collisions of false-vacuum bubble walls in a quantum spin chain,

    A. Milsted, J. Liu, J. Preskill, and G. Vidal, “Collisions of false-vacuum bubble walls in a quantum spin chain,” PRX Quantum 3 (Apr, 2022) 020316. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.020316

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.3.020316 2022

  8. [8]

    Real-time scattering in the lattice Schwinger model,

    I. Papaefstathiou, J. Knolle, and M. C. Ba˜ nuls, “Real-time scattering in the lattice Schwinger model,” [arXiv:2402.18429 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Simulating Meson Scattering on Spin Quantum Simulators,

    E. R. Bennewitz et al. , “Simulating Meson Scattering on Spin Quantum Simulators,” [arXiv:2403.07061 [quant-ph]]

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Entanglement generation in (1+1)D QED scattering processes,

    M. Rigobello, S. Notarnicola, G. Magnifico, and S. Montangero, “Entanglement generation in (1+1)D QED scattering processes,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 11, (2021) 114501, [arXiv:2105.03445 [hep-lat]]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Simulating quantum field theories on continuous-variable quantum computers,

    S. Abel, M. Spannowsky, and S. Williams, “Simulating quantum field theories on continuous-variable quantum computers,” Phys. Rev. A 110 no. 1, (2024) 012607, [arXiv:2403.10619 [quant-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Simulating (2 + 1)D su(2) yang-mills lattice gauge theory at finite density with tensor networks,

    G. Cataldi, G. Magnifico, P. Silvi, and S. Montangero, “Simulating (2 + 1)D su(2) yang-mills lattice gauge theory at finite density with tensor networks,” Phys. Rev. Res. 6 (Jul, 2024) 033057. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.033057

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Real-Time Scattering in Ising Field Theory using Matrix Product States,

    R. G. Jha, A. Milsted, D. Neuenfeld, J. Preskill, and P. Vieira, “Real-Time Scattering in Ising Field Theory using Matrix Product States,” [arXiv:2411.13645 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Real-Time Simulation of Asymmetry Generation in Fermion-Bubble Collisions,

    M. Carena, Y.-Y. Li, T. Ou, and H. Singh, “Real-Time Simulation of Asymmetry Generation in Fermion-Bubble Collisions,” [arXiv:2412.10365 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Quantum computation of SU(2) lattice gauge theory with continuous variables,

    V. Ale, N. M. Bauer, R. G. Jha, F. Ringer, and G. Siopsis, “Quantum computation of SU(2) lattice gauge theory with continuous variables,” [arXiv:2410.14580 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Scalable quantum simulations of scattering in scalar field theory on 120 qubits,

    N. A. Zemlevskiy, “Scalable quantum simulations of scattering in scalar field theory on 120 qubits,” 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.02486

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Hybrid oscillator-qubit quantum processors: Simulating fermions, bosons, and gauge fields,

    E. Crane, K. C. Smith, T. Tomesh, A. Eickbusch, J. M. Martyn, S. K¨ uhn, L. Funcke, M. A. DeMarco, I. L. Chuang, N. Wiebe, A. Schuckert, and S. M. Girvin, “Hybrid oscillator-qubit quantum processors: Simulating fermions, bosons, and gauge fields,” 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2...

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Fermionic wave packet scattering: a quantum computing approach,

    Y. Chai, A. Crippa, K. Jansen, S. K¨ uhn, V. R. Pascuzzi, F. Tacchino, and I. Tavernelli, “Fermionic wave packet scattering: a quantum computing approach,” Quantum 9 (Feb.,

  11. [19]

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

    E. A. Martinez et al. , “Real-time dynamics of lattice gauge theories with a few-qubit quantum computer,” Nature 534 (2016) 516–519, [arXiv:1605.04570 [quant-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

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

    D. Banerjee, M. Dalmonte, M. M¨ uller, E. Rico, P. Stebler, U.-J. Wiese, and P. Zoller, “Atomic quantum simulation of dynamical gauge fields coupled to fermionic matter: From string breaking to evolution after a quench,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (Oct, 2012) 175302. https://link.ap...

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    Enhancing quantum field theory simulations on NISQ devices with Hamiltonian truncation,

    J. Ingoldby, M. Spannowsky, T. Sypchenko, and S. Williams, “Enhancing quantum field theory simulations on NISQ devices with Hamiltonian truncation,” Phys. Rev. D 110 no. 9, (2024) 096016, [arXiv:2407.19022 [quant-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Thermalization dynamics of a gauge theory on a quantum simulator,

    Z.-Y. Zhou, G.-X. Su, J. C. Halimeh, R. Ott, H. Sun, P. Hauke, B. Yang, Z.-S. Yuan, J. Berges, and J.-W. Pan, “Thermalization dynamics of a gauge theory on a quantum simulator,” Science 377 no. 6603, (2022) 311–314, [https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abl6277]. ht...

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Quantum simulation of nonequilibrium dynamics and thermalization in the schwinger model,

    W. A. de Jong, K. Lee, J. Mulligan, M. P losko´ n, F. Ringer, and X. Yao, “Quantum simulation of nonequilibrium dynamics and thermalization in the schwinger model,” Phys. Rev. D 106 (Sep, 2022) 054508. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.054508

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    Critical behavior of the ising model by preparing the thermal state on a quantum computer,

    X. Wang, X. Feng, T. Hartung, K. Jansen, and P. Stornati, “Critical behavior of the ising model by preparing the thermal state on a quantum computer,” Phys. Rev. A 108 (Aug,

  17. [25]

    Simulating Z 2 lattice gauge theory with the variational quantum thermalizer,

    M. Fromm, O. Philipsen, M. Spannowsky, and C. Winterowd, “Simulating Z 2 lattice gauge theory with the variational quantum thermalizer,” EPJ Quant. Technol. 11 no. 1, (2024) 20, [arXiv:2306.06057 [hep-lat]]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Dynamical quantum phase transitions in a noisy lattice gauge theory,

    R. B. Jensen, S. P. Pedersen, and N. T. Zinner, “Dynamical quantum phase transitions in a noisy lattice gauge theory,” Phys. Rev. B 105 no. 22, (2022) 224309, [arXiv:2203.10927 [hep-lat]]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    First-Order Phase Transition of the Schwinger Model with a Quantum Computer,

    T. Angelides, P. Naredi, A. Crippa, K. Jansen, S. K¨ uhn, I. Tavernelli, and D. S. Wang, “First-Order Phase Transition of the Schwinger Model with a Quantum Computer,” [arXiv:2312.12831 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Quantum computation of dynamical quantum phase transitions and entanglement tomography in a lattice gauge theory,

    N. Mueller, J. A. Carolan, A. Connelly, Z. Davoudi, E. F. Dumitrescu, and K. Yeter-Aydeniz, “Quantum computation of dynamical quantum phase transitions and entanglement tomography in a lattice gauge theory,” PRX Quantum 4 (Aug, 2023) 030323. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PR...

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond,

    J. Preskill, “Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond,” Quantum 2 (2018) 79, [arXiv:1801.00862 [quant-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Simulating quantum field theory with a quantum computer,

    J. Preskill, “Simulating quantum field theory with a quantum computer,” PoS LA TTICE2018(2018) 024, [arXiv:1811.10085 [hep-lat]]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Quantum computation over continuous variables,

    S. Lloyd and S. L. Braunstein, “Quantum computation over continuous variables,” Phys. – 27 – Rev. Lett. 82 (Feb, 1999) 1784–1787. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.1784

    1999 doi

  24. [32]

    Continuous variable quantum information: Gaussian states and beyond,

    G. Adesso, S. Ragy, and A. R. Lee, “Continuous variable quantum information: Gaussian states and beyond,” Open Systems & Information Dynamics 21 no. 01n02, (2014) 1440001, [https://doi.org/10.1142/S1230161214400010]. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1230161214400010

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    Quantum information with continuous variables,

    S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, “Quantum information with continuous variables,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 77 (Jun, 2005) 513–577. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.77.513

    2005 doi

  26. [34]

    Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits,

    P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, J. P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, “Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 79 (Jan, 2007) 135–174. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.79.135

    2007 doi

  27. [35]

    Photonic quantum information processing: A concise review,

    S. Slussarenko and G. J. Pryde, “Photonic quantum information processing: A concise review,” Applied Physics Reviews 6 no. 4, (10, 2019) 041303, [https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apr/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.5115814/19739502/041303 1 online.pdf]. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5115814

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    Applications of near-term photonic quantum computers: software and algorithms,

    T. R. Bromley, J. M. Arrazola, S. Jahangiri, J. Izaac, N. Quesada, A. D. Gran, M. Schuld, J. Swinarton, Z. Zabaneh, and N. Killoran, “Applications of near-term photonic quantum computers: software and algorithms,” Quantum Science and Technology 5 no. 3, (May, 2020) 034010. htt...

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    Approximation of semi-groups of operators.,

    H. F. Trotter, “Approximation of semi-groups of operators.,” Pacific Journal of Mathematics 8 no. 4, (1958) 887 – 919

    1958

  30. [38]

    Decomposition formulas of exponential operators and lie exponentials with some applications to quantum mechanics and statistical physics,

    M. Suzuki, “Decomposition formulas of exponential operators and lie exponentials with some applications to quantum mechanics and statistical physics,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 26 no. 4, (04, 1985) 601–612, [https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article-pdf/26/4/601/19120226/601 ...

    1985 doi

  31. [39]

    Qibo: a framework for quantum simulation with hardware acceleration,

    S. Efthymiou, S. Ramos-Calderer, C. Bravo-Prieto, A. P´ erez-Salinas, D. Garc ´ ıa-Mart ´ ın, A. Garcia-Saez, J. I. Latorre, and S. Carrazza, “Qibo: a framework for quantum simulation with hardware acceleration,” Quantum Science and Technology 7 no. 1, (Dec, 2021) 015018. http...

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations,

    G. Vidal, “Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations,” Physical Review Letters 91 no. 14, (Oct., 2003) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.147902

    2003 doi

  33. [41]

    Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quantum many-body systems,

    G. Vidal, “Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quantum many-body systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 040502, [arXiv:quant-ph/0310089]

    2004 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Production of photonic universal quantum gates enhanced by machine learning,

    K. K. Sabapathy, H. Qi, J. Izaac, and C. Weedbrook, “Production of photonic universal quantum gates enhanced by machine learning,” Phys. Rev. A 100 (Jul, 2019) 012326. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.012326

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    Conversion of gaussian states to non-gaussian states using photon-number-resolving detectors,

    D. Su, C. R. Myers, and K. K. Sabapathy, “Conversion of gaussian states to non-gaussian states using photon-number-resolving detectors,” Phys. Rev. A 100 (Nov, 2019) 052301. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.052301. – 28 –

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    The complexity of the local hamiltonian problem,

    J. Kempe, A. Kitaev, and O. Regev, “The complexity of the local hamiltonian problem,” SIAM Journal on Computing 35 no. 5, (2006) 1070–1097, [https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539704445226]. https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539704445226

    2006 doi

  37. [45]

    Wavefunction preparation and resampling using a quantum computer,

    A. Kitaev and W. A. Webb, “Wavefunction preparation and resampling using a quantum computer,” arXiv preprint arXiv:0801.0342 (2008)

    2008 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Strawberry Fields: A Software Platform for Photonic Quantum Computing,

    N. Killoran, J. Izaac, N. Quesada, V. Bergholm, M. Amy, and C. Weedbrook, “Strawberry Fields: A Software Platform for Photonic Quantum Computing,” Quantum 3 (Mar., 2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    Quantum computation by adiabatic evolution,

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and M. Sipser, “Quantum computation by adiabatic evolution,” 2000. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0001106

    2000 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Adiabatic quantum computation,

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, “Adiabatic quantum computation,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 90 (Jan,

  41. [49]

    Bounds for the adiabatic approximation with applications to quantum computation,

    S. Jansen, M.-B. Ruskai, and R. Seiler, “Bounds for the adiabatic approximation with applications to quantum computation,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 48 no. 10, (10,

  42. [50]

    A note on the switching adiabatic theorem,

    A. Elgart and G. A. Hagedorn, “A note on the switching adiabatic theorem,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 53 no. 10, (09, 2012) 102202, [https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4748968/15598623/102202 1 online.pdf]. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4748968. – 29 –

    2012 doi

  43. [129]

    https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2019-03-11-129

    2019 doi

  44. [1981]

    https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.46.77

    77–80. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.46.77

    doi

  45. [2007]

    https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2798382

    102111, [https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.2798382/16055030/102111 1 online.pdf]. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2798382

    doi

  46. [2018]

    https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.90.015002

    015002. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.90.015002

    doi

  47. [2023]

    https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.108.022612

    022612. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.108.022612

    doi

  48. [2025]

    https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2025-02-19-1638

    1638. https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2025-02-19-1638

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.