Towards the phase diagram of fermions coupled with $SO(3)$ quantum links in $(2+1)$-D

Bipasha Chakraborty; Debasish Banerjee; Emilie Huffman; Graham Van Goffrier; Sandip Maiti

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 14 references

Towards the phase diagram of fermions coupled with $SO(3)$ quantum links in $(2+1)$-D

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single plaquette of the (2+1)-dimensional SO(3) quantum link model with adjoint fermions, solved by exact diagonalization in the gauge-invariant subspace, already shows spontaneous and explicit chiral symmetry breaking, confinement, and…

desk verdict A checkable new basis construction for a non-Abelian QLM with dynamical fermions, but the single-plaquette phase diagram is restricted to one baryon sector and not yet a phase diagram. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09691 v1 pith:EUBGQ72R submitted 2024-12-12 hep-lat cond-mat.str-elquant-ph

Graham Van Goffrier , Debasish Banerjee , Bipasha Chakraborty , Emilie Huffman , Sandip Maiti This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-latcond-mat.str-elquant-ph

keywords quantumlinkmodelSO(3)latticegaugetheoryadjointfermionschiralsymmetrybreakingconfinementexactdiagonalizationgauge-invariantHilbertspace2+1dimensions

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 extends the SO(3) quantum link model with adjoint fermions from (1+1) to (2+1) dimensions and asks whether one plaquette of this lattice gauge theory already displays QCD-like physics. By solving the non-Abelian Gauss law exactly, the authors obtain a ten-dimensional gauge-invariant Hilbert space per site and rewrite the Hamiltonian entirely in gauge-invariant local operators. Exact diagonalization of the single-plaquette system in the zero-baryon sector then yields three magnetic phases (zero-, low-, and high-field plaquette expectation) and two chiral phases, with spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking in the massless limit below a coupling $g_\chi$ that is distinct from the magnetic critical coupling $g_C$. The paper concludes that non-Abelian quantum link models with dynamical fermions are discretizations capable of exhibiting core QCD phenomena, a step toward quantum simulating non-perturbative gauge theories.

What carries the argument

The construction rests on an $so(6)$ embedding algebra in which each link's gauge field is built from spin-1/2 operators, and the Gauss law constraint $G^a|\Psi\rangle=0$ is solved exactly. This yields ten gauge-invariant states per site: four products of pure-gauge singlet states with fermion occupation 0 or 3, and six 'triplet-triplet' states that combine gauge triplet states with single- or double-occupied adjoint fermions. The Hamiltonian is expressed solely through gauge-invariant local operators—the fermion number $M$, the gauge-mixing bilinears $\Phi_{ij}$, and the generalized fermion-gauge raising/lowering operators $B^\pm_i$—which gives sparse matrix blocks labeled by global baryon number $B$. Ground states are then obtained by Lanczos iteration on the $B=0$ sector of a single plaquette (four sites, 1878 states once gauge degrees of freedom are included).

What would settle it

Exact-diagonalize the full single-plaquette Hamiltonian without the $B=0$ filter and check, on a grid of $(g,m,G,V)$ values, whether any state with nonzero baryon number is lower in energy than the $B=0$ ground state; if so, the reported phase boundaries are not those of the true ground state.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the (2+1)-dimensional SO(3) quantum link model with adjoint fermions has a gauge-invariant subspace of exactly ten states per site, and that the single-plaquette Hamiltonian restricted to the $B=0$ baryon sector produces a rich phase diagram: a plaquette observable $\langle \Phi\rangle$ that takes zero-, low-, and high-field values, and a chiral condensate $\langle \bar\Psi\Psi\rangle$ that is either preserved, weakly broken, or maximally broken. The authors find that the chiral transition at $g_\chi$ occurs at a different coupling than the magnetic transition at $g_C$, that any nonzero fermion mass makes explicit chiral symmetry breaking unavoidable, and that four-Fermi couplings $G$ and $V$ systematically move both critical couplings. They interpret the high-field phase as confining, with fermion occupation clustered toward one corner of the plaquette, and the low-field phase as a checkerboarded occupancy pattern. The authors present these as preliminary indications rather than a settled thermodynamic phase diagram.

Load-bearing premise

All reported phases come from the $B=0$ baryon-number sector, and the paper assumes this sector contains the true ground state even though it notes the ground state moves to other baryon sectors for some couplings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The ten-state gauge-invariant Hilbert space per site provides an explicit, finite-dimensional encoding of a non-Abelian gauge theory with dynamical matter, suitable for quantum-circuit construction.
The single-plaquette phase diagram predicts zero-, low-, and high-field magnetic regimes that can be searched for in tensor-network or quantum-hardware simulations of small lattices.
The separation $g_\chi\neq g_C$ shows that chiral and magnetic transitions are controlled by different couplings already at the smallest nontrivial volume.
Positive four-Fermi coupling $G$ stabilizes the zero-to-high-field magnetic transition, while negative $G$ smooths it unless a nearest-neighbor coupling $V\approx -2G$ is added.
Negative nearest-neighbor coupling $V$ suppresses spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking, providing a direct control knob for the chiral phase.

Reading between the lines

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

If the single-plaquette phase structure survives on larger lattices, the SO(3) quantum link model with adjoint fermions could become a standard benchmark for quantum algorithms targeting real-time QCD-like dynamics, because it has no sign problem at finite density.
A natural next calculation is to add a chemical potential and map the ground-state baryon number across the same parameter grid; this would reveal whether any reported phase boundary is actually a first-order transition into a baryonic sector the paper did not compute.
The sharpening of the $g_\chi$ transition with infinitesimal mass suggests the massless limit may harbor a quantum critical point; measuring the gap on $2\times2$ and larger lattices would show whether $g_\chi$ approaches $g_C$ in the thermodynamic limit.
The clustering of fermions toward one corner in the high-field phase resembles a precursor of flux-tube or string formation; Wilson-loop and entanglement measurements on slightly larger lattices could make that connection quantitative.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The thing worth knowing about this proceedings paper is the 10-dimensional gauge-invariant local basis for the SO(3) quantum link model with dynamical adjoint fermions in (2+1)d. That construction is new, checkable, and the matrix representations they write down are explicit. The single-plaquette phase diagram is honestly labeled as indications, and that is the right word: it is a start, not a finished result.

What the paper does well: it extends the QLM-with-matter program to (2+1)d, gives a clean operator description, and computes exact diagonalization results on a 4-site plaquette. The basis dimension matches the tensor-product singlet count, so the local construction is likely correct. The paper also acknowledges that these are preliminary and that larger-scale simulations are in progress. Self-citations to [10] and [11] are appropriate for the construction and the matter-free parent theory.

Where it gets soft. First, the phase diagram is computed only in the B=0 sector. The text explicitly says the ground state is not B=0 for all parameters, and that the variation with G and V was 'analytically understood'—but the analysis is not shown. Because [B,H]=0, every B=0 result in a region where the true ground state has B≠0 is an excited-state expectation value. With only 10^4 states total, a sector-resolved comparison is a small calculation and should precede any physical interpretation of the phase boundaries. Second, 'spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking' on a single plaquette is inferred from a vanishing gap and staggered occupation patterns. On a finite lattice there is no true spontaneous symmetry breaking; you need an explicit symmetry-breaking field and an extrapolation to the thermodynamic limit, or at least a finite-size study. The paper does neither. Third, the phase diagram is one plaquette, so no finite-size scaling is possible. The authors say larger simulations are coming, but the current claims cannot be more than suggestive.

The math and citation pattern look solid. The central construction is likely correct, and the paper does not overstate what it has; the word 'indications' is doing real work. The main flaws are the unverified sector restriction and the finite-size gap between the observables and the phase-diagram language.

Who this is for: people working on quantum simulation of gauge theories and on QLMs specifically. The basis construction is a useful contribution on its own. The phase diagram claims need follow-up.

Recommendation: deserves a serious referee. A reasonable editor should send it out rather than desk reject, with a request that the authors either provide the sector-resolved comparison or explicitly re-label the results as B=0-sector phase boundaries. I would not cite the phase diagram, but I would cite the basis construction.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs the gauge-invariant subspace for an SO(3) quantum link model with staggered adjoint fermions in (2+1) dimensions, obtaining 10 states per site, and writes the Hamiltonian as a sparse matrix in terms of gauge-invariant operators. It then performs exact diagonalization on a single plaquette (N=4), restricted to the B=0 baryon-number sector, and reports phase diagrams for the plaquette expectation value and the chiral condensate as functions of the fermion mass m, inverse plaquette coupling g, and four-fermi couplings G and V. The authors interpret these results as indications of spontaneous and explicit chiral symmetry breaking, confining behavior, and distinct magnetic phases.

Significance. The explicit solution of the Gauss law constraint and the derivation of the 10-state gauge-invariant basis are clean technical contributions that will be useful for tensor-network and quantum-computing studies of this model. The phase diagrams are genuine outputs of exact diagonalization: the five couplings {t,m,g,G,V} are scanned model inputs, not fitted parameters, so the reported boundaries are not circular. However, as the authors themselves acknowledge, the ED is restricted to a single symmetry sector, and the physics claims rest on a single plaquette with no finite-size scaling and no direct order-parameter analysis for spontaneous symmetry breaking. The work is therefore a promising first step whose central phenomenological claims are not yet fully established.

major comments (4)

[Section 3, after Eq. (8)] The exact diagonalization is performed only in the B=0 sector, yet the text states: 'Although the baryon number of the ground state is not 0 for all choices of parameters {t,m,g,G,V}, and we have analytically understood its variation with the Fermi couplings G,V in particular, we restrict ourselves to the B=0 sector.' Since [B,H]=0, this is a hard truncation, not a variational error. If the true ground state has B≠0 in any region of parameter space, every observable in Figs. 4-7 is an excited-state expectation value and the reported phase boundaries are not those of the ground state. The promised analytical understanding of the sector variation is not presented, so the reader cannot judge which regions are protected. A direct comparison across baryon sectors is straightforward for N=4 (10^4 total states) and should be included before any physical interpretation of the phase diagram.
[Section 4, chiral symmetry-breaking paragraph] The identification of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking is based on a staggered fermion occupation pattern and a diminishing gap between the ground and first excited states. On a finite single plaquette, spontaneous symmetry breaking cannot be established without either a symmetry-breaking field with extrapolation to zero, or a genuine thermodynamic-limit analysis. The reported 'maximal' and 'weak' chiral-symmetry-breaking regions are therefore inferred, not demonstrated, and this inference is load-bearing for the abstract's claim of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking.
[Section 4, Figs. 4-7] All phase boundaries are computed for a single plaquette (N=4). The sharp features labeled g_C and g_χ may be finite-size crossovers rather than true transitions. The authors appropriately use the word 'indications' in the abstract, but the discussion and figure captions refer to 'phases' and 'critical couplings' as if the transitions were established. Please provide any finite-size scaling study (even a 2×2 or a 2×3 lattice) or explicitly state that the reported boundaries are effective single-plaquette crossovers with no claim to thermodynamic-limit status.
[Section 4, last paragraph] The interpretation of confinement is based on the clustering of fermion occupation towards one corner of the plaquette. No Wilson loop, string tension, or static quark-antiquark potential is computed. On a single plaquette, this observable is not a standard confinement order parameter; the term 'confinement' should be replaced by a neutral description such as 'inhomogeneous fermion clustering' unless a more direct diagnostic is provided.

minor comments (6)

[Eq. (1)] The commutator [R^a, R^{bd}] appears to be a typo; the second R should likely be O, giving [R^a, O^{bd}].
[Section 4, Fig. 4 discussion] The values '⟨Φ⟩∼50' and '⟨Φ⟩∼80' are quoted without stating the normalization of Tr[ΦΦΦΦ]; please specify the range or normalization of the plaquette operator.
[Section 4, chirality discussion] The phrase 'For couplings stronger than g_χ' is ambiguous because smaller g corresponds to stronger coupling; please clarify the direction of the inequality.
[Section 5] 'Matrix produce states' should be 'matrix product states'.
[Figure captions, Figs. 3, 6, 7] The captions are not self-contained; for example, Figure 3's symbolic notation for the 10 states is not explained in the text, and Figures 6 and 7 do not define the color scale or the location of the 'boundary line' in the caption.
[References] Reference [8] is an arXiv preprint without a year; please update it if it has been published.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the single-plaquette phase diagram is a direct exact-diagonalization output, and the self-citations supply the Hamiltonian/basis construction rather than the phase-diagram claims.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—plaquette expectation values, chiral condensates, and critical couplings—are computed by Lanczos diagonalization of the explicitly written Hamiltonian (Eq. 7) over the 10-state per-site gauge-invariant basis. The five couplings {t, m, g, G, V} are scanned model inputs; none is fitted to the observables plotted in Figs. 4–7. The citations to Refs. [9,10] provide the SO(3) operator algebra, the gauge-invariant basis (Eqs. 4–5), and the Hamiltonian form (Eq. 7), but these are algebraic constructions whose Gauss-law condition is checked in the text; they do not by themselves determine the phase boundaries. Ref. [11] is a prior matter-free study and is not used as evidence for the matter-coupled phase diagram. The B=0-sector restriction is a stated limitation (Sec. 3) affecting whether the plotted phases are the global ground states, but it is not circular: [B,H]=0 makes the computation a well-defined constrained exact diagonalization rather than a fit. No step reduces a prediction to its inputs, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The Hamiltonian has five couplings (t, m, g, G, V) scanned over chosen ranges; none are fitted to the target observables, so no free parameters are listed. The derivation relies on three unproven but plausible assumptions: completeness of the 10-state per-site gauge-invariant basis, the B=0 ground-state sector, and the use of single-plaquette expectation values as indicators of infinite-volume phases.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The set of ten gauge-invariant states per site is complete.
The paper states 'we have identified' the states; completeness is asserted rather than proven. The count matches a tensor-product singlet count (2+3+3+2=10), which supports it but is not shown in the paper.
domain assumption The physical ground state lies in the B=0 baryon-number sector for the parameters studied.
Section 3: the analysis is restricted to B=0, justified by a continuum-limit expectation, not by direct comparison with other sectors.
domain assumption Single-plaquette (N=4) observables can serve as order parameters for infinite-volume phases.
The phase diagram is read from ED on one plaquette; no finite-size scaling or extrapolation is performed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards the phase diagram of fermions coupled with $SO(3)$ quantum links in $(2+1)$-D." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EUBGQ72R

@misc{pith2026241209691,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards the phase diagram of fermions coupled with $SO(3)$ quantum links in $(2+1)$-D},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EUBGQ72R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09691}
}

abstract

Quantum link models (QLMs) are generalizations of Wilson's lattice gauge theory formulated with finite-dimensional link Hilbert spaces. In certain cases, the non-Abelian Gauss Law constraint can be exactly solved, and the gauge invariant subspace embedded onto local spin Hamiltonians for efficient quantum simulation. In $(1+1)d$ previous studies of the $SO(3)$ QLM coupled to adjoint fermionic matter have been shown to reflect key properties of QCD and nuclear physics, including distinct confining/deconfining phases and hadronic bound states. We extend the model to $(2+1)d$ dimensions for the first time, and report on our initial results. We review the construction of gauge-invariant state space for the proposed models, and study the single-plaquette ground state via exact-diagonalisation. We provide indications of a rich phase diagram which shows both spontaneous and explicit chiral symmetry breaking, confinement, and distinct magnetic phases characterised by different plaquette expectation values.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09691 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Operator schematic for a single-plaquette lattice [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Ground-state plaquette observable ⟨Φ⟩ for varied fermion mass 𝑚 and inverse plaquette coupling 𝑔. 4. Chiral and Magnetic Observables for a Single Plaquette A standard gauge-invariant observable in LQCD is the average spatial plaquette ⟨Φ⟩, or in our notation, the expectation value of Tr[ΦΦΦΦ]. This quantity is known to be a good order parameter for bulk thermodynamics, and can also be interpreted as an average magne… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Ground-state chiral condensate observable ⟨ΨΨ¯ ⟩ for varied fermion mass 𝑚 and inverse plaquette coupling 𝑔. a nonzero mass term to explicitly break chiral symmetry. To assess these properties, we examine the chiral condensate observable ⟨ΨΨ¯ ⟩, or in our notation, the…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Magnetic critical coupling 𝑔𝐶 for massless fermions 𝑚 = 0, as a function of four-fermi couplings 𝐺 and 𝑉. In all cases the model transitions from a zero-field to a high-field regime, but to the left of the obvious boundary line this occurs smoothly, while to the right …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[10]

nuclear physics

Enrique Rico, Marcello Dalmonte, Peter Zoller, Debarghya Banerjee, Michael Bögli, Pascal Stebler, and U-J Wiese. So (3)“nuclear physics” with ultracold gases.Annals of physics, 393:466–483, 2018

work page 2018
[11]

Spontaneous symmetry breaking in a𝑠𝑜(3) non-abelian lattice gauge theory in2+ 1 d with quantum algorithms

Sandip Maiti, Debasish Banerjee, Bipasha Chakraborty, and Emilie Huffman. Spontaneous symmetry breaking in a𝑠𝑜(3) non-abelian lattice gauge theory in2+ 1 d with quantum algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.07108, 2024

arXiv 2024
[1]

Towards quantum simulating qcd.Nuclear Physics A, 931:246–256, 2014

Uwe-Jens Wiese. Towards quantum simulating qcd.Nuclear Physics A, 931:246–256, 2014

work page 2014
[2]

From quantum link models to d-theory: a resource efficient framework for thequantumsimulationandcomputationofgaugetheories

Uwe-Jens Wiese. From quantum link models to d-theory: a resource efficient framework for thequantumsimulationandcomputationofgaugetheories. PhilosophicalTransactionsofthe Royal Society A, 380(2216):20210068, 2022

work page 2022
[3]

Quantum, 6:878, 2022

Jad C Halimeh, Maarten Van Damme, Torsten V Zache, Debasish Banerjee, and Philipp Hauke.Achievingthequantumfieldtheorylimitinfar-from-equilibriumquantumlinkmodels. Quantum, 6:878, 2022

work page 2022
[4]

Towardthecontinuumlimitofa(1+1)dquantumlinkschwingermodel

TorstenVZache,MaartenVanDamme,JadCHalimeh,PhilippHauke,andDebasishBanerjee. Towardthecontinuumlimitofa(1+1)dquantumlinkschwingermodel. PhysicalReviewD , 106(9):L091502, 2022

work page 2022
[5]

Dynamical quantum phase transitions in u (1) quantum link models.Physical Review Letters, 122(25):250401, 2019

Yi-Ping Huang, Debasish Banerjee, and Markus Heyl. Dynamical quantum phase transitions in u (1) quantum link models.Physical Review Letters, 122(25):250401, 2019

work page 2019
[6]

EmilieHuffman,MiguelGarcíaVera,andDebasishBanerjee. Towardthereal-timeevolution of gauge-invariant z 2 and u (1) quantum link models on noisy intermediate-scale quantum hardware with error mitigation.Physical Review D, 106(9):094502, 2022

work page 2022

Show all 14 references

[7]

D Banerjee, S Caspar, F-J Jiang, J-H Peng, and U-J Wiese. Nematic confined phases in the u (1) quantum link model on a triangular lattice: Near-term quantum computations of string dynamics on a chip.Physical Review Research, 4(2):023176, 2022

2022
[8]

Spin-s u (1) quantum link models with dynamical matter on a quantum simulator.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06368

Jesse Osborne, Bing Yang, Ian P McCulloch, Philipp Hauke, and Jad C Halimeh. Spin-s u (1) quantum link models with dynamical matter on a quantum simulator.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06368

arXiv
[9]

Non-Trivial𝜃-VacuumEffectsinthe 2-d𝑂(3) ModelandQuantumSimulation of Non-Abelian Lattice Gauge Theories

MichaelBögli. Non-Trivial𝜃-VacuumEffectsinthe 2-d𝑂(3) ModelandQuantumSimulation of Non-Abelian Lattice Gauge Theories. PhD thesis, Universität Bern, 2014

2014
[12]

An iteration method for the solution of the eigenvalue problem of linear differential and integral operators

Cornelius Lanczos. An iteration method for the solution of the eigenvalue problem of linear differential and integral operators. 1950

1950
[13]

Phase diagrams for coupled spin-gauge systems

Michael Creutz. Phase diagrams for coupled spin-gauge systems. Physical Review D, 21(4):1006, 1980

1980
[14]

Generalizedactionsinzplatticegaugetheory

MichaelCreutzandMasanoriOkawa. Generalizedactionsinzplatticegaugetheory. Nuclear Physics B, 220(2):149–166, 1983. 9

1983

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [10]

nuclear physics

Enrique Rico, Marcello Dalmonte, Peter Zoller, Debarghya Banerjee, Michael Bögli, Pascal Stebler, and U-J Wiese. So (3)“nuclear physics” with ultracold gases.Annals of physics, 393:466–483, 2018

work page 2018

[2] [11]

Spontaneous symmetry breaking in a𝑠𝑜(3) non-abelian lattice gauge theory in2+ 1 d with quantum algorithms

Sandip Maiti, Debasish Banerjee, Bipasha Chakraborty, and Emilie Huffman. Spontaneous symmetry breaking in a𝑠𝑜(3) non-abelian lattice gauge theory in2+ 1 d with quantum algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.07108, 2024

arXiv 2024

[3] [1]

Towards quantum simulating qcd.Nuclear Physics A, 931:246–256, 2014

Uwe-Jens Wiese. Towards quantum simulating qcd.Nuclear Physics A, 931:246–256, 2014

work page 2014

[4] [2]

From quantum link models to d-theory: a resource efficient framework for thequantumsimulationandcomputationofgaugetheories

Uwe-Jens Wiese. From quantum link models to d-theory: a resource efficient framework for thequantumsimulationandcomputationofgaugetheories. PhilosophicalTransactionsofthe Royal Society A, 380(2216):20210068, 2022

work page 2022

[5] [3]

Quantum, 6:878, 2022

Jad C Halimeh, Maarten Van Damme, Torsten V Zache, Debasish Banerjee, and Philipp Hauke.Achievingthequantumfieldtheorylimitinfar-from-equilibriumquantumlinkmodels. Quantum, 6:878, 2022

work page 2022

[6] [4]

Towardthecontinuumlimitofa(1+1)dquantumlinkschwingermodel

TorstenVZache,MaartenVanDamme,JadCHalimeh,PhilippHauke,andDebasishBanerjee. Towardthecontinuumlimitofa(1+1)dquantumlinkschwingermodel. PhysicalReviewD , 106(9):L091502, 2022

work page 2022

[7] [5]

Dynamical quantum phase transitions in u (1) quantum link models.Physical Review Letters, 122(25):250401, 2019

Yi-Ping Huang, Debasish Banerjee, and Markus Heyl. Dynamical quantum phase transitions in u (1) quantum link models.Physical Review Letters, 122(25):250401, 2019

work page 2019

[8] [6]

EmilieHuffman,MiguelGarcíaVera,andDebasishBanerjee. Towardthereal-timeevolution of gauge-invariant z 2 and u (1) quantum link models on noisy intermediate-scale quantum hardware with error mitigation.Physical Review D, 106(9):094502, 2022

work page 2022