Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 9 cited by

Search for Efficient Formulations for Hamiltonian Simulation of non-Abelian Lattice Gauge Theories

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-27 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Loop-String-Hadron formulation of SU(2) lattice gauge theory reproduces the physical Hilbert space of the Kogut–Susskind theory at exponentially lower construction cost, making it the preferred formulation for Hamiltonian simulation.

desk verdict A practical, quantitative comparison of SU(2) LGT formulations; the LSH advantage is real but rests on an imported Hilbert-space equivalence that should be stated as an assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2009.11802 v1 pith:GZKSVVK7 submitted 2020-09-24 hep-lat hep-phnucl-thquant-ph

Zohreh Davoudi , Indrakshi Raychowdhury , Andrew Shaw This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lathep-phnucl-thquant-ph MSC 81T2581T1381P68
keywords Hamiltonianlatticegaugetheoryquantumsimulationnon-AbelianLoop-String-HadronformulationKogut-SusskindGauss'slawSU(2)Hilbert-spacetruncation
topics Yang-Mills Mass Gap
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 compares four Hamiltonian formulations of the SU(2) lattice gauge theory in 1+1 dimensions coupled to one flavor of staggered fermions—the original Kogut–Susskind angular-momentum basis, a purely fermionic form available with open boundary conditions, a purely bosonic U(2) form, and the Loop-String-Hadron (LSH) formulation—and asks which is cheapest to simulate once the infinite gauge-field Hilbert space is truncated. Its central conclusion is that the LSH formulation produces exactly the same physical Hilbert space and Hamiltonian as the original theory after Gauss's laws are imposed, but does so at exponentially lower cost because every LSH basis state is already gauge invariant and only an Abelian link constraint remains. For a twenty-site lattice, the angular-momentum basis would need roughly 160 orders of magnitude more classical computing resources than LSH; the purely fermionic form is the least costly in 1+1 dimensions but carries redundant states and cannot extend to higher dimensions. The paper argues that LSH is therefore the preferred formulation for Hamiltonian simulation, with direct implications for both classical tensor-network studies and future quantum simulators.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Loop-String-Hadron (LSH) basis: at each lattice site a state is labeled by three integers, $n_l$ (loop), $n_i$ (incoming string), and $n_o$ (outgoing string), built from harmonic-oscillator prepotentials at each end of the gauge link and the local fermionic matter. The formulation expresses the Kogut–Susskind electric, mass, and matter–gauge interaction terms entirely through gauge-invariant ladder operators on this basis. Its decisive property is that the non-Abelian Gauss's law is satisfied by construction—each operator moves between gauge-invariant states—so the only constraint to impose is the Abelian equality of boson occupation numbers at the two ends of each link, $N_L(x)=n_l(x)+n_o(x)(1-n_i(x))=n_l(x+1)+n_i(x+1)(1-n_o(x+1))=N_R(x)$. That single algebraic condition reduces the construction of the physical Hilbert space and Hamiltonian to an exponentially cheaper task, and it is this same locality of gauge invariance that the paper argues will survive in higher dimensions.

What would settle it

Take a lattice of size $N=8$ with cutoff $\Lambda=4$ in the $\nu=1$ sector, enumerate the physical Hilbert space in both the Loop-String-Hadron basis and the angular-momentum basis, and compare the dimensions and the action of the interaction Hamiltonian. A mismatch would disprove the claimed one-to-one correspondence on which the efficiency comparison rests.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a one-to-one correspondence: after the non-Abelian SU(2) Gauss's laws and the Abelian link constraint are imposed, the Loop-String-Hadron basis spans the same physical Hilbert space as the Kogut–Susskind angular-momentum basis, and the two Hamiltonians are identical in that space. The LSH gain comes from encoding gauge invariance in the basis itself: a state is labeled at each site by a loop number $n_l$ and incoming/outgoing string numbers $n_i,n_o$, built from Schwinger-boson prepotentials and the staggered fermions, so the non-Abelian constraint never has to be solved by forming linear combinations of states. Only the Abelian condition $N_L(x)=N_R(x)$ on each link remains, and it is enforced analytically. The resulting construction cost of the physical Hilbert space scales as $O(N^2 2^N)$ in LSH, against super-exponential costs in the angular-momentum basis, and Hamiltonian generation drops from roughly $O(N^2 5^N\Lambda^N)$ to $O(N^2 4^N)$. With open boundary conditions the purely fermionic form is the cheapest of all, but its Hilbert space contains redundancies that produce spectral degeneracies and it has no analog in higher dimensions; the purely bosonic U(2) form only reproduces the SU(2) theory once its extra U(1) cutoff reaches the lattice size.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every Loop-String-Hadron basis state corresponds to exactly one physical Kogut–Susskind angular-momentum state for all lattice sizes and cutoffs; this correspondence is taken from earlier work and only checked in simple cases here, so any hidden gap or redundancy would change the efficiency comparison.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For exact classical Hamiltonian simulation of the 1+1-dimensional SU(2) theory, the angular-momentum formulation becomes unusable even at tens of sites; LSH removes the super-exponential Hilbert-space and Hamiltonian-generation bottlenecks while giving identical spectra and matrix elements.
  • With open boundary conditions, the purely fermionic formulation remains the cheapest overall and has essentially free physical-state construction, but its redundant states and spectral degeneracies make LSH preferable whenever one wants a clean physical Hilbert space.
  • The purely bosonic U(2) formulation is only faithful to the SU(2) theory once its U(1) cutoff is at least the lattice size, so its apparent simplicity comes with an extra truncation cost.
  • Low-lying spectra in the truncated theory converge exponentially in the cutoff once a sufficiently large cutoff is reached, and the cutoff needed stabilizes toward the continuum limit; high-lying states and long-time dynamics require noticeably larger cutoffs.
  • Time-evolved quantities are far more cutoff-sensitive than static spectra, so long-time dynamics will demand either larger cutoffs or a renormalization-based extrapolation in the cutoff.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same 'solve the constraint at the operator level' strategy is applied to the magnetic plaquette term needed in 2+1 dimensions, the LSH advantage over the angular-momentum basis should grow rather than shrink, since the physical-state construction cost is where the angular-momentum basis is worst; a direct 2+1D cost comparison would test this.
  • The empirical exponential convergence of observables in $\Lambda$ and in $\sqrt{x}$ resembles a sampling or bandwidth effect; a Hamiltonian-renormalization analysis could convert these fits into a controlled $\Lambda\to\infty$ extrapolation, making LSH-based simulations on small lattices quantitatively predictive.
  • The completeness of the LSH basis for arbitrary lattice size and cutoff could be confirmed by an exact enumeration of the LSH and angular-momentum physical Hilbert spaces on lattices of size $N=8$ or $10$ at several cutoffs, which would be an inexpensive check of the one-to-one correspondence assumption.
  • A qubit-level resource count—qubits and gates rather than classical matrix operations—could rank the formulations differently; the fermionic form's all-to-all couplings and the LSH basis's local operators make such a count a natural next test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

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 presents a comparative analysis of Hamiltonian formulations of the SU(2) lattice gauge theory with one staggered fermion in 1+1 dimensions, focusing on their suitability for Hamiltonian simulation. The formulations considered are the original Kogut–Susskind (KS) theory in the angular-momentum basis, a purely fermionic formulation with open boundary conditions, a purely bosonic U(2)-extended formulation, and the Loop-String-Hadron (LSH) formulation. The authors derive empirical scaling laws for the physical Hilbert-space dimension as a function of lattice size N and electric-field cutoff Λ, estimate the classical time complexity of Hilbert-space construction, Hamiltonian generation, and observable computation in each formulation, and study the cutoff dependence of spectra and dynamics. The main conclusion is that the LSH formulation reproduces the physical sector of the KS theory at exponentially lower construction cost and is therefore the preferred formulation for Hamiltonian simulation, with the fermionic formulation slightly cheaper in 1+1 D with open boundary conditions but not generalizable to higher dimensions.

Significance. This is a timely and potentially useful comparative study for the quantum- and classical-simulation community: it addresses, systematically for the first time, the question of which Hamiltonian formulation of a non-Abelian lattice gauge theory is most efficient. The empirical scaling laws for physical Hilbert-space dimensions and the analysis of cutoff effects on spectra and dynamics are valuable reference data. The central claim—that the LSH formulation is exponentially more efficient than the angular-momentum formulation while describing the same physical Hilbert space—rests on a bijection that is imported from prior work and not verified here, and the cost estimates contain internal inconsistencies. If the bijection and the corrected cost analysis hold, the paper would be an important guide for future Hamiltonian simulations of non-Abelian gauge theories.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III D and §V] The claimed one-to-one correspondence between the LSH Hilbert space and the physical Hilbert space of the KS theory in the angular-momentum basis is the load-bearing premise of the cost comparisons in Section V, since all resource estimates are normalized to the shared dimension M∼4^N. This correspondence is asserted but not demonstrated: the only explicit example is the N=2, ν=1 case (Fig. 12 and Eq. (70)), and the spectral check in Section VI is for one parameter set (N=6, PBC, ν=1). The text says only 'It can be shown...' and delegates the proof to Ref. [95]. I request that the manuscript either state the precise theorem from Ref. [95] and give a proof sketch adapted to the enumeration in Eq. (73), or provide a systematic numerical verification by comparing the LSH Hilbert-space dimensions generated by the algorithm of Section III D with the KS dimensions in Tables III/IV for all N, Λ, boundary conditions, and global-charge sectors. As written, the central comparative claim rests on an unexamined premise.
  2. [§III B] The assertion after Eq. (71) that 'the spectrum of both theories matches exactly ... but with degeneracies present in the fermionic case' is made without proof or numerical evidence. This claim is used in Section VII to characterize the fermionic representation as redundant but physically faithful. If the fermionic Hamiltonian possesses additional eigenstates that are not degenerate with the physical ones, the statement is incorrect and the comparison with the LSH formulation is affected. Please provide a derivation or the numerical spectra for the N=2 and N=4 cases (with states labeled by the Q and q sectors), or replace the claim with the weaker, verifiable statement that the physical subspace of the fermionic Hilbert space is invariant and reproduces the KS spectrum.
  3. [§V B and §V D] The LSH Hamiltonian-generation cost estimate is internally inconsistent. Section V B states that for each state the lookup of the resulting state's index in the table costs O(4^{N−1}) and is the dominant step, but the final result T(LSH)_II ∼ O(N^2 4^N) in Eq. (86) does not follow: iterating over M∼4^{N−1} states and O(N) Hamiltonian terms with a per-state lookup of O(4^{N−1}) would give O(N 4^{2N}). Relatedly, the claim in Section V D that for N=20 the fermionic formulation requires '20 orders of magnitude lesser resources' than LSH is incompatible with the analytic scalings T(F)_II ∼ O(N^2 4^N) and T(LSH)_II ∼ O(N^2 4^N), which differ only by a factor polynomial in N. Please clarify the data structure used for the state-index lookup (e.g., a hash table with O(N) key evaluation), correct Eq. (86) if the per-state lookup is indeed exponential, and update the numerical comparisons in Figure 14 and the related text accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§II D] The text defining the LSH basis is duplicated: after Eqs. (40)–(43) the passage repeats, and in the duplicated version the allowed range of nl is incorrectly given as 0≤nl(x)≤1 (with a stray '⊿' in Eq. (43)), contradicting the unbounded range in Eq. (41) and states such as |nl=2,...⟩ shown in Fig. 3. Remove the duplicated passage and keep the correct unbounded range.
  2. [Captions of Fig. 19 and Fig. 22] The caption of Fig. 19 says 'The same quantity as in Fig. 19' but should refer to Fig. 17; the caption of Fig. 22 appears to have the same misreference. Please check all cross-references in the figure captions.
  3. [§V A] The phrase 'the LHS formulation' appears where 'the LSH formulation' is intended; please correct the typo.
  4. [Appendix A] The sentence referring to dimensional reduction contains an empty citation placeholder '[...]' and 'through analysis' should be 'thorough analysis'; please complete the reference and fix the typo.
  5. [§V C] The density notation ρH is defined as the ratio of non-zero elements to M^2, but the text also uses the symbol p for the exponent in M∼e^{pN}; using two meanings for p in nearby sections is confusing and should be disambiguated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction; the LSH-KS equivalence is imported from a coauthored prior paper but is supported by an independent spectral cross-check, so the comparative cost analysis stands on its own.

full rationale

The paper's central result is a comparative cost analysis of known Hamiltonian formulations. The only potentially load-bearing imported ingredient is the one-to-one correspondence between the LSH Hilbert space and the KS physical Hilbert space, stated in Sec. III D ('The LSH Hilbert space, both for OBC and PBC, is identical to the physical Hilbert space of the KS theory...') and used in Sec. V to assign both formulations the same dimension M ~ 4^N. This correspondence is not re-derived for general N and Lambda; it is delegated to Ref. [95], whose first author is also an author of this paper. However, this is a self-citation rather than a circular reduction: Ref. [95] is a parameter-free construction of a complete set of gauge-invariant operators, and the present paper provides an independent numerical cross-check in Sec. VI, where 'the matrix elements of this Hamiltonian can be formed using the KS angular-momentum or LSH bases, giving rise to identical results in the physical sector.' The cost estimates do not fit any quantity to data that they then claim to predict; the empirical Hilbert-space scalings in Sec. III are presented as fits and are used only to extrapolate complexity. No equation in the paper defines a target quantity in terms of itself. The duplicated 0 <= nl <= 1 passage is an internal inconsistency in the displayed allowed range of the loop quantum number, not a circular step. The score reflects the minor self-citation load, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its conclusions rest on standard angular-momentum algebra, the chosen truncation scheme, and two cited equivalences (LSH completeness from the authors' prior work, U(2)/SU(2) isomorphism from Zohar and Cirac). The empirical fit parameters (p, q, density) are used for extrapolation but are clearly labeled as fits.

free parameters (4)
  • Asymptotic exponent p for physical Hilbert-space growth with N (PBC) = 1.660 (+0.022, -0.004)
    Obtained by fitting M ~ e^{pN} for N=2..10 at each cutoff and extrapolating the cutoff dependence; used in cost scaling estimates.
  • Asymptotic exponent p for physical Hilbert-space growth with N (OBC) = 1.800 (+0.0014, -0.003)
    Same fitting procedure with OBC.
  • Asymptotic exponent q for growth with cutoff Λ (OBC) = 1.146 (+0.037, -0.071)
    Fitted from M ~ e^{qΛ} for several N and extrapolating N-dependence.
  • LSH Hamiltonian matrix density ρH = 2^{-N} (empirical)
    Approximated from an empirical fit to the density of the LSH Hamiltonian for small lattice sizes; used in observable-cost estimate.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard angular-momentum addition and Clebsch-Gordan coefficients form the basis for the KS angular-momentum representation.
    Used throughout Secs. II A and III A to construct gauge-invariant states.
  • domain assumption The SU(2) lattice gauge theory in 1+1 D with one flavor of staggered fermions is the theory under study, and truncating JL,JR ≤ Jmax (Λ=2Jmax) produces a finite Hilbert space whose low-energy sector approximates the full theory.
    The whole analysis is built on this truncation scheme, introduced in Sec. III A.
  • ad hoc to paper Physical Hilbert space of the LSH formulation is identical to the physical Hilbert space of the KS theory in the angular-momentum basis.
    Taken from the authors' prior work (Ref. [95]) and only spot-checked here; it is the foundation for the cost comparison.
  • ad hoc to paper The U(2)-extended bosonized theory is isomorphic to the original SU(2) theory when the U(1) cutoff Λ0 is sufficiently large (Λ0 ≥ N with OBC).
    Assumed from Zohar and Cirac (Ref. [93]); used to compare the bosonic formulation.
  • domain assumption Cost of observable computation scales as O(ρH M^2) for sparse matrix eigenvalue and exponentiation algorithms.
    Stated in Sec. V C as a general measure for spectral and dynamical observables; underpins the total-cost comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Search for Efficient Formulations for Hamiltonian Simulation of non-Abelian Lattice Gauge Theories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GZKSVVK7

@misc{pith2026200911802,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Search for Efficient Formulations for Hamiltonian Simulation of non-Abelian Lattice Gauge Theories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GZKSVVK7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2009.11802}
}
read the original abstract

Hamiltonian formulation of lattice gauge theories (LGTs) is the most natural framework for the purpose of quantum simulation, an area of research that is growing with advances in quantum-computing algorithms and hardware. It, therefore, remains an important task to identify the most accurate, while computationally economic, Hamiltonian formulation(s) in such theories, considering the necessary truncation imposed on the Hilbert space of gauge bosons with any finite computing resources. This paper is a first step toward addressing this question in the case of non-Abelian LGTs, which further require the imposition of non-Abelian Gauss's laws on the Hilbert space, introducing additional computational complexity. Focusing on the case of SU(2) LGT in 1+1 D coupled to matter, a number of different formulations of the original Kogut-Susskind framework are analyzed with regard to the dependence of the dimension of the physical Hilbert space on boundary conditions, system's size, and the cutoff on the excitations of gauge bosons. The impact of such dependencies on the accuracy of the spectrum and dynamics is examined, and the (classical) computational-resource requirements given these considerations are studied. Besides the well-known angular-momentum formulation of the theory, the cases of purely fermionic and purely bosonic formulations (with open boundary conditions), and the Loop-String-Hadron formulation are analyzed, along with a brief discussion of a Quantum Link Model of the same theory. Clear advantages are found in working with the Loop-String-Hadron framework which implements non-Abelian Gauss's laws a priori using a complete set of gauge-invariant operators. Although small lattices are studied in the numerical analysis of this work, and only the simplest algorithms are considered, a range of conclusions will be applicable to larger systems and potentially to higher dimensions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2009.11802 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A physical site along the spatial direction is split to two staggered sites in the KS Hamiltonian. These sites are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The KS LGT is illustrated in terms of the DOF of the LSH formulation. The left and right electric fields and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. The dependence of the logarithm of the dimension [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (18 more)
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Shown in blue is the same as in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The upper panel depicts the ratio of the dimension [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The dimension of the physical Hilbert space, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The LSH Hilbert space with OBC on a lattice of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. The physical Hilbert space within the LSH formu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The asymptotic cumulative cost of the three steps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. The asymptotic cost of each step of given classical al [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. The spectra of the KS Hamiltonian in the physical Hilbert space with PBC for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. The quantity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_17.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. The same quantity as in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. The spectra of the bosonized KS Hamiltonian in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. The quantity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22. The left panel shows the quantity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_22.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: FIG. 25. The (logarithm of the) ratio of the dimension of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: FIG. 26. The spectra of the KS Hamiltonian in the physical Hilbert space with OBC for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_26.png]
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: FIG. 28. The quantity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_28.png]
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: FIG. 30. The quantity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_30.png]
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: FIG. 29. The quantity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_29.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 9 Pith papers

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

  1. Quantum simulation of scattering amplitudes and interferences in perturbative QCD

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A quantum circuit encodes QCD colour factors and diagram interferences in a measurement probability, with permuted identical-particle diagrams generated by swap sorting networks.

  2. Non-Abelian dynamics on a cube: improving quantum compilation through qudit-based simulations

    quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A qudit-based circuit for SU(2) lattice gauge theory on a cube, with improved decompositions for uniformly-controlled rotations and new elementary-gate resource estimates.

  3. Arbitrary-Distance Quantum Error Correction with Gauss's Law for $\mathbb Z_2$ Lattice Gauge Theory

    hep-lat 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Gauss's law constraints in Z2 lattice gauge theory can be made into quantum error-correcting codes of arbitrary distance, with provably optimal encoding rate within the constructed family.

  4. Eigenstate Thermalization in 1+1-Dimensional SU(2) Lattice Gauge Theory Coupled with Dynamical Fermions

    hep-th 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Exact diagonalization shows 1+1D SU(2) lattice gauge theory with dynamical fermions satisfies ETH, including for non-local string operators that display a memory peak.

  5. Obtaining continuum physics from dynamical simulations of Hamiltonian lattice gauge theories

    hep-lat 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper introduces the SBTE protocol, which treats approximate time evolution error as negligible once it is below statistical uncertainty, and shows this makes continuum-limit renormalization in lattice gauge theor...

  6. Quantum computation of hadron scattering in a lattice gauge theory

    quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    On a trapped-ion quantum computer, the authors prepared multiple meson wave packets and simulated their early-time collisions in a 1+1D Z2 lattice gauge theory.

  7. Cold Atom Quantum Simulator for String and Hadron Dynamics in Non-Abelian Lattice Gauge Theory

    hep-lat 2020-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A two-species ionic Fermi-Hubbard model of ultracold fermions is mapped to the weak-coupling limit of 1+1d SU(2) lattice gauge theory, with spectra and dynamics benchmarked by exact diagonalization on small lattices.

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

    hep-lat 2026-02 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A 60-site SU(2) lattice gauge theory was run on 120 qubits, but the implemented dynamics approximate to non-interacting fermion hopping, and the abstract's claimed breathing-mode frequency is not extracted anywhere.

  9. Tensor-network toolbox for probing dynamics of non-Abelian gauge theories

    hep-lat 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A matrix-product-state ansatz in the loop-string-hadron basis is used to compute ground-state energies, static potentials, and string-breaking dynamics of (1+1)D SU(2) lattice gauge theory, reproducing known qualitati...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

125 extracted references · 83 canonical work pages · cited by 9 Pith papers

  1. [95]

    Loop, String, and Hadron Dynamics in SU(2) Hamiltonian Lattice Gauge Theories

    Indrakshi Raychowdhury and Jesse R. Stryker, “Loop, String, and Hadron Dynamics in SU(2) Hamiltonian Lattice Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 114502 (2020), arXiv:1912.06133 [hep-lat]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  2. [1]

    2 (World Scientific, 1989)

    Hagen Kleinert, Gauge fields in condensed matter, Vol. 2 (World Scientific, 1989)

    1989

  3. [2]

    Eduardo Fradkin, Field theories of condensed matter physics (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    2013

  4. [3]

    Review of Particle Physics,

    M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), “Review of Particle Physics,” Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018)

    2018

  5. [4]

    The standard model and beyond,

    Paul Langacker, “The standard model and beyond,” in AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 150 (American Insti- tute of Physics, 1986) pp. 142–164

    1986

  6. [5]

    Gauge theory,

    David Tong, “Gauge theory,” (2018)

    2018

  7. [6]

    Confinement of Quarks,

    Kenneth G. Wilson, “Confinement of Quarks,” , 45–59 (1974)

    1974

  8. [7]

    An Introduction to Lattice Gauge The- ory and Spin Systems,

    John B. Kogut, “An Introduction to Lattice Gauge The- ory and Spin Systems,” Rev. Mod. Phys.51, 659 (1979)

    1979

Show all 125 references
  1. [8]

    Monte Carlo Computations in Lattice Gauge Theo- ries,

    Michael Creutz, Laurence Jacobs, and Claudio Rebbi, “Monte Carlo Computations in Lattice Gauge Theo- ries,” Phys. Rept. 95, 201–282 (1983)

    1983

  2. [9]

    Monte Carlo Study of Real Time Dynamics on the Lattice,

    Andrei Alexandru, Gokce Basar, Paulo F. Bedaque, So- han Vartak, and Neill C. Warrington, “Monte Carlo Study of Real Time Dynamics on the Lattice,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 081602 (2016), arXiv:1605.08040 [hep- lat]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Deeply virtual Compton scatter- ing,

    Xiang-Dong Ji, “Deeply virtual Compton scatter- ing,” Phys. Rev. D 55, 7114–7125 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9609381

    1997

  4. [11]

    Long- range electroweak amplitudes of single hadrons from Eu- clidean finite-volume correlation functions,

    Raul A. Briceno, Zohreh Davoudi, Maxwell T. Hansen, Matthias R. Schindler, and Alessandro Baroni, “Long- range electroweak amplitudes of single hadrons from Eu- clidean finite-volume correlation functions,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 014509 (2020), arXiv:1911.04036 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Parton Physics on a Euclidean Lattice,

    Xiangdong Ji, “Parton Physics on a Euclidean Lattice,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 262002 (2013), arXiv:1305.1539 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Quasi-parton distribution functions, momentum distributions, and pseudo-parton distribu- tion functions,

    A.V. Radyushkin, “Quasi-parton distribution functions, momentum distributions, and pseudo-parton distribu- tion functions,” Phys. Rev. D 96, 034025 (2017), arXiv:1705.01488 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Introductory lectures on lattice QCD at nonzero baryon number,

    Gert Aarts, “Introductory lectures on lattice QCD at nonzero baryon number,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 706, 022004 (2016), arXiv:1512.05145 [hep-lat]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Statistics of baryon correlation functions in lattice QCD,

    Michael L. Wagman and Martin J. Savage, “Statistics of baryon correlation functions in lattice QCD,” Phys. Rev. D 96, 114508 (2017), arXiv:1611.07643 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Review on Novel Methods for Lattice Gauge Theories,

    Mari Carmen Bauls and Krzysztof Cichy, “Review on Novel Methods for Lattice Gauge Theories,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 83, 024401 (2020), arXiv:1910.00257 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [17]

    A Practical Introduction to Tensor Net- works: Matrix Product States and Projected Entan- gled Pair States,

    Roman Orus, “A Practical Introduction to Tensor Net- works: Matrix Product States and Projected Entan- gled Pair States,” Annals Phys. 349, 117–158 (2014), arXiv:1306.2164 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2014 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Simulation of many- body fermi systems on a universal quantum computer,

    Daniel S Abrams and Seth Lloyd, “Simulation of many- body fermi systems on a universal quantum computer,” Physical Review Letters 79, 2586 (1997)

    1997

  12. [19]

    Goals and opportuni- ties in quantum simulation,

    J Ignacio Cirac and Peter Zoller, “Goals and opportuni- ties in quantum simulation,” Nature Physics 8, 264–266 (2012)

    2012

  13. [20]

    Quantum simulation,

    Andreas Trabesinger, “Quantum simulation,” Nature Physics 8, 263–263 (2012)

    2012

  14. [21]

    Focus on quantum simulation,

    Tobias Schaetz, Chris R Monroe, and Tilman Esslinger, “Focus on quantum simulation,” New Journal of Physics 15, 085009 (2013)

    2013

  15. [22]

    Quantum simulation,

    Iulia M Georgescu, Sahel Ashhab, and Franco Nori, “Quantum simulation,” Reviews of Modern Physics 86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  16. [23]

    Quantum Algorithms for Quantum Field Theories,

    Stephen P. Jordan, Keith S.M. Lee, and John Preskill, “Quantum Algorithms for Quantum Field Theories,” Science 336, 1130–1133 (2012), arXiv:1111.3633 [quant- ph]

    2012 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Quantum Computation of Scattering in Scalar Quan- tum Field Theories,

    Stephen P. Jordan, Keith S.M. Lee, and John Preskill, “Quantum Computation of Scattering in Scalar Quan- tum Field Theories,” Quant. Inf. Comput. 14, 1014– 1080 (2014), arXiv:1112.4833 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Optical Abelian Lattice Gauge Theories,

    L. Tagliacozzo, A. Celi, A. Zamora, and M. Lewen- stein, “Optical Abelian Lattice Gauge Theories,” An- nals Phys. 330, 160–191 (2013), arXiv:1205.0496 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

    2013 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Atomic Quan- tum Simulation of Dynamical Gauge Fields coupled to Fermionic Matter: From String Breaking to Evolution after a Quench,

    D. Banerjee, M. Dalmonte, M. Muller, E. Rico, P. Ste- bler, U.-J. Wiese, and P. Zoller, “Atomic Quan- tum Simulation of Dynamical Gauge Fields coupled to Fermionic Matter: From String Breaking to Evolution after a Quench,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 175302 (2012), arXiv:1205.6366 [...

    2012 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Cold- Atom Quantum Simulator for SU(2) Yang-Mills Lattice Gauge Theory,

    Erez Zohar, J.Ignacio Cirac, and Benni Reznik, “Cold- Atom Quantum Simulator for SU(2) Yang-Mills Lattice Gauge Theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 125304 (2013), arXiv:1211.2241 [quant-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Quantum Algorithms for Fermionic Quantum Field Theories,

    Stephen P. Jordan, Keith S. M. Lee, and John Preskill, “Quantum Algorithms for Fermionic Quantum Field Theories,” (2014), arXiv:1404.7115 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Formulation of lat- tice gauge theories for quantum simulations,

    Erez Zohar and Michele Burrello, “Formulation of lat- tice gauge theories for quantum simulations,” Phys. Rev. D 91, 054506 (2015), arXiv:1409.3085 [quant-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Non-Abelian SU (2) Lattice Gauge Theories in Superconducting Circuits,

    A. Mezzacapo, E. Rico, C. Sabn, I.L. Egusquiza, L. Lamata, and E. Solano, “Non-Abelian SU (2) Lattice Gauge Theories in Superconducting Circuits,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 240502 (2015), arXiv:1505.04720 [quant-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [31]

    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, 516–519 (2016), arXiv:1605.04570 [quant- ph]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Faster Quantum Algorithm to simulate Fermionic Quantum Field Theory,

    Ali Hamed Moosavian and Stephen Jordan, “Faster Quantum Algorithm to simulate Fermionic Quantum Field Theory,” Phys. Rev. A 98, 012332 (2018), arXiv:1711.04006 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Quantum simu- lation of lattice gauge theories using Wilson fermions,

    T.V. Zache, F. Hebenstreit, F. Jendrzejewski, M.K. Oberthaler, J. Berges, and P. Hauke, “Quantum simu- lation of lattice gauge theories using Wilson fermions,” Sci. Technol. 3, 034010 (2018), arXiv:1802.06704 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Realization of density-dependent Peierls phases to engineer quantized gauge fields coupled to ultra- cold matter,

    Frederik Grg, Kilian Sandholzer, Joaqun Minguzzi, Rmi Desbuquois, Michael Messer, and Tilman Esslinger, “Realization of density-dependent Peierls phases to engineer quantized gauge fields coupled to ultra- cold matter,” Nature Phys. 15, 1161–1167 (2019), arXiv:1812.05895 [cond-...

    2019 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Floquet approach to ? 2 lattice gauge theories with ultracold atoms in optical lattices,

    Christian Schweizer, Fabian Grusdt, Moritz Berngru- ber, Luca Barbiero, Eugene Demler, Nathan Goldman, Immanuel Bloch, and Monika Aidelsburger, “Floquet approach to ? 2 lattice gauge theories with ultracold atoms in optical lattices,” Nature Physics15, 1168–1173 (2019). 33

    2019

  29. [36]

    Quantum-classical computation of Schwinger model dynamics using quantum comput- ers,

    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 comput- ers,” Phys. Rev. A 98, 032331 (2018), arXiv:1803.03326 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Simulations of Subatomic Many- Body Physics on a Quantum Frequency Processor,

    Hsuan-Hao Lu et al., “Simulations of Subatomic Many- Body Physics on a Quantum Frequency Processor,” Phys. Rev. A 100, 012320 (2019), arXiv:1810.03959 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Circuit complexity in interacting QFTs and RG flows,

    Arpan Bhattacharyya, Arvind Shekar, and Aninda Sinha, “Circuit complexity in interacting QFTs and RG flows,” JHEP 10, 140 (2018), arXiv:1808.03105 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Oracles for Gauss’s law on digital quantum computers,

    Jesse R. Stryker, “Oracles for Gauss’s law on digital quantum computers,” Phys. Rev. A 99, 042301 (2019), arXiv:1812.01617 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Solv- ing Gauss’s Law on Digital Quantum Computers with Loop-String-Hadron Digitization,

    Indrakshi Raychowdhury and Jesse R. Stryker, “Solv- ing Gauss’s Law on Digital Quantum Computers with Loop-String-Hadron Digitization,” Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033039 (2020), arXiv:1812.07554 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Re- alizing a scalable building block of a U(1) gauge the- ory with cold atomic mixtures,

    Alexander Mil, Torsten V. Zache, Apoorva Hegde, Andy Xia, Rohit P. Bhatt, Markus K. Oberthaler, Philipp Hauke, Jrgen Berges, and Fred Jendrzejewski, “Re- alizing a scalable building block of a U(1) gauge the- ory with cold atomic mixtures,” (2019), 10.1126/sci- ence.aaz5312, a...

    2019 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Minimally- Entangled State Preparation of Localized Wavefunc- tions on Quantum Computers,

    Natalie Klco and Martin J. Savage, “Minimally- Entangled State Preparation of Localized Wavefunc- tions on Quantum Computers,” Phys. Rev. A 102, 012612 (2020), arXiv:1904.10440 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  36. [43]

    SU(2) non-Abelian gauge field theory in one dimen- sion on digital quantum computers,

    Natalie Klco, Jesse R. Stryker, and Martin J. Savage, “SU(2) non-Abelian gauge field theory in one dimen- sion on digital quantum computers,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 074512 (2020), arXiv:1908.06935 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [44]

    A quantum algo- rithm for high energy physics simulations,

    Christian W. Bauer, Wibe A. De Jong, Benjamin Nachman, and Davide Provasoli, “A quantum algo- rithm for high energy physics simulations,” (2019), arXiv:1904.03196 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Towards analog quantum simulations of lattice gauge theories with trapped ions,

    Zohreh Davoudi, Mohammad Hafezi, Christopher Mon- roe, Guido Pagano, Alireza Seif, and Andrew Shaw, “Towards analog quantum simulations of lattice gauge theories with trapped ions,” Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023015 (2020), arXiv:1908.03210 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Systematically Lo- calizable Operators for Quantum Simulations of Quan- tum Field Theories,

    Natalie Klco and Martin J. Savage, “Systematically Lo- calizable Operators for Quantum Simulations of Quan- tum Field Theories,” Phys. Rev. A 102, 012619 (2020), arXiv:1912.03577 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Parton physics on a quantum computer,

    Henry Lamm, Scott Lawrence, and Yukari Yamauchi (NuQS), “Parton physics on a quantum computer,” Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013272 (2020), arXiv:1908.10439 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Deeply inelastic scattering structure functions on a hybrid quantum computer,

    Niklas Mueller, Andrey Tarasov, and Raju Venu- gopalan, “Deeply inelastic scattering structure functions on a hybrid quantum computer,” Phys. Rev. D 102, 016007 (2020), arXiv:1908.07051 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [49]

    General Methods for Digital Quantum Sim- ulation of Gauge Theories,

    Henry Lamm, Scott Lawrence, and Yukari Yamauchi (NuQS), “General Methods for Digital Quantum Sim- ulation of Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 034518 (2019), arXiv:1903.08807 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Gluon Field Digitization for Quantum Computers,

    Andrei Alexandru, Paulo F. Bedaque, Siddhartha Har- malkar, Henry Lamm, Scott Lawrence, and Neill C. Warrington (NuQS), “Gluon Field Digitization for Quantum Computers,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 114501 (2019), arXiv:1906.11213 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Quantum Simulation of Field Theories Without State Preparation,

    Siddhartha Harmalkar, Henry Lamm, and Scott Lawrence (NuQS), “Quantum Simulation of Field Theories Without State Preparation,” (2020), arXiv:2001.11490 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Observation of gauge invariance in a 71-site quantum simulator,

    Bing Yang, Hui Sun, Robert Ott, Han-Yi Wang, Torsten V. Zache, Jad C. Halimeh, Zhen-Sheng Yuan, Philipp Hauke, and Jian-Wei Pan, “Observation of gauge invariance in a 71-site quantum simulator,” (2020), arXiv:2003.08945 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Quantum Algorithms for Simulat- ing the Lattice Schwinger Model,

    Alexander F. Shaw, Pavel Lougovski, Jesse R. Stryker, and Nathan Wiebe, “Quantum Algorithms for Simulat- ing the Lattice Schwinger Model,” (2020), 10.22331/q- 2020-08-10-306, arXiv:2002.11146 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Real-time chi- ral dynamics from a digital quantum simulation,

    Dmitri E. Kharzeev and Yuta Kikuchi, “Real-time chi- ral dynamics from a digital quantum simulation,” Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023342 (2020), arXiv:2001.00698 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Digital Quantum Simulation of the Schwinger Model with Topological Term via Adiabatic State Preparation,

    Bipasha Chakraborty, Masazumi Honda, Taku Izubuchi, Yuta Kikuchi, and Akio Tomiya, “Digital Quantum Simulation of the Schwinger Model with Topological Term via Adiabatic State Preparation,” (2020), arXiv:2001.00485 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  49. [56]

    An Algorithm for Quantum Com- putation of Particle Decays,

    Anthony Ciavarella, “An Algorithm for Quantum Com- putation of Particle Decays,” (2020), arXiv:2007.04447 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Quantum simulation of quantum field theories as quantum chemistry,

    Junyu Liu and Yuan Xin, “Quantum simulation of quantum field theories as quantum chemistry,” (2020), arXiv:2004.13234 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Quantum Simu- lation of Quantum Field Theory in the Light-Front For- mulation,

    Michael Kreshchuk, William M. Kirby, Gary Goldstein, Hugo Beauchemin, and Peter J. Love, “Quantum Simu- lation of Quantum Field Theory in the Light-Front For- mulation,” (2020), arXiv:2002.04016 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Fixed-Point Quan- tum Circuits for Quantum Field Theories,

    Natalie Klco and Martin J. Savage, “Fixed-Point Quan- tum Circuits for Quantum Field Theories,” (2020), arXiv:2002.02018 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [60]

    A resource efficient approach for quantum and classical simulations of gauge theories in particle physics,

    Jan F. Haase, Luca Dellantonio, Alessio Celi, Danny Paulson, Angus Kan, Karl Jansen, and Christine A. Muschik, “A resource efficient approach for quantum and classical simulations of gauge theories in particle physics,” (2020), arXiv:2006.14160 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Towards simulating 2D effects in lattice gauge theories on a quantum computer,

    Danny Paulson et al., “Towards simulating 2D effects in lattice gauge theories on a quantum computer,” (2020), arXiv:2008.09252 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Simulating Lattice Gauge Theories within Quantum Technologies,

    M.C. Bauls et al., “Simulating Lattice Gauge Theories within Quantum Technologies,” Eur. Phys. J. D74, 165 (2020), arXiv:1911.00003 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,

    John Preskill, “Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,” Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  57. [64]

    Quantum simu- lations with trapped ions,

    Rainer Blatt and Christian F Roos, “Quantum simu- lations with trapped ions,” Nature Physics 8, 277–284 (2012)

    2012

  58. [65]

    Quantum simu- lations with ultracold atoms in optical lattices,

    Christian Gross and Immanuel Bloch, “Quantum simu- lations with ultracold atoms in optical lattices,” Science 357, 995–1001 (2017)

    2017

  59. [66]

    Tools for quantum simulation with ultracold atoms in optical lat- tices,

    Florian Sch¨ afer, Takeshi Fukuhara, Seiji Sugawa, Yosuke Takasu, and Yoshiro Takahashi, “Tools for quantum simulation with ultracold atoms in optical lat- tices,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.06120 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Ex- perimental quantum simulations of many-body physics with trapped ions,

    Ch Schneider, Diego Porras, and Tobias Schaetz, “Ex- perimental quantum simulations of many-body physics with trapped ions,” Reports on Progress in Physics 75, 024401 (2012)

    2012

  61. [68]

    Universal digital quantum simulation with trapped ions,

    Ben P Lanyon, Cornelius Hempel, Daniel Nigg, Markus M¨ uller, Rene Gerritsma, F Z¨ ahringer, Philipp Schindler, Julio T Barreiro, Markus Rambach, Gerhard Kirch- 34 mair, et al., “Universal digital quantum simulation with trapped ions,” Science 334, 57–61 (2011)

    2011

  62. [69]

    Programmable quantum simula- tions of spin systems with trapped ions,

    C Monroe, WC Campbell, L-M Duan, Z-X Gong, AV Gorshkov, P Hess, R Islam, K Kim, G Pagano, P Richerme, et al. , “Programmable quantum simula- tions of spin systems with trapped ions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.07845 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  63. [70]

    Circuit qed lattices: towards quantum simulation with superconducting cir- cuits,

    Sebastian Schmidt and Jens Koch, “Circuit qed lattices: towards quantum simulation with superconducting cir- cuits,” Annalen der Physik 525, 395–412 (2013)

    2013

  64. [71]

    On-chip quantum simulation with superconducting cir- cuits,

    Andrew A Houck, Hakan E T¨ ureci, and Jens Koch, “On-chip quantum simulation with superconducting cir- cuits,” Nature Physics 8, 292–299 (2012)

    2012

  65. [72]

    Recent progress in quantum simulation using superconducting circuits,

    GS Paraoanu, “Recent progress in quantum simulation using superconducting circuits,” Journal of Low Tem- perature Physics 175, 633–654 (2014)

    2014

  66. [73]

    Digital-analog quantum simu- lations with superconducting circuits,

    Lucas Lamata, Adrian Parra-Rodriguez, Mikel Sanz, and Enrique Solano, “Digital-analog quantum simu- lations with superconducting circuits,” Advances in Physics: X 3, 1457981 (2018)

    2018

  67. [74]

    Quantum Simulators: Architec- tures and Opportunities,

    Ehud Altman et al. , “Quantum Simulators: Architec- tures and Opportunities,” (2019), arXiv:1912.06938 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  68. [75]

    Quantum simulations of one dimensional quantum systems,

    Rolando D Somma, “Quantum simulations of one dimensional quantum systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.06319 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  69. [76]

    Digital quantum com- putation of fermion-boson interacting systems,

    Alexandru Macridin, Panagiotis Spentzouris, James Amundson, and Roni Harnik, “Digital quantum com- putation of fermion-boson interacting systems,” Phys. Rev. A 98, 042312 (2018), arXiv:1805.09928 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  70. [77]

    Digitization of scalar fields for quantum computing,

    Natalie Klco and Martin J. Savage, “Digitization of scalar fields for quantum computing,” Phys. Rev. A 99, 052335 (2019), arXiv:1808.10378 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  71. [78]

    Digitizing Gauge Fields: Lattice Monte Carlo Results for Future Quantum Computers,

    Daniel C. Hackett, Kiel Howe, Ciaran Hughes, William Jay, Ethan T. Neil, and James N. Simone, “Digitizing Gauge Fields: Lattice Monte Carlo Results for Future Quantum Computers,” Phys. Rev. A 99, 062341 (2019), arXiv:1811.03629 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  72. [79]

    σ Models on Quan- tum Computers,

    Andrei Alexandru, Paulo F. Bedaque, Henry Lamm, and Scott Lawrence (NuQS), “ σ Models on Quan- tum Computers,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 090501 (2019), arXiv:1903.06577 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  73. [80]

    Qubit regularization of the O(3) sigma model,

    Hersh Singh and Shailesh Chandrasekharan, “Qubit regularization of the O(3) sigma model,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 054505 (2019), arXiv:1905.13204 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  74. [81]

    Quantum link models: A Discrete approach to gauge theories,

    S. Chandrasekharan and U.J. Wiese, “Quantum link models: A Discrete approach to gauge theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 492, 455–474 (1997), arXiv:hep-lat/9609042

    1997 arXiv

  75. [82]

    QCD as a quantum link model,

    R. Brower, S. Chandrasekharan, and U.J. Wiese, “QCD as a quantum link model,” Phys. Rev. D 60, 094502 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9704106

    1999 arXiv

  76. [83]

    Hamiltonian Formulation of Wilson’s Lattice Gauge Theories,

    John B. Kogut and Leonard Susskind, “Hamiltonian Formulation of Wilson’s Lattice Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rev. D 11, 395–408 (1975)

    1975

  77. [84]

    Strong Coupling Calculations of Lattice Gauge Theo- ries: (1+1)-Dimensional Exercises,

    Tom Banks, Leonard Susskind, and John B. Kogut, “Strong Coupling Calculations of Lattice Gauge Theo- ries: (1+1)-Dimensional Exercises,” Phys. Rev. D 13, 1043 (1976)

    1976

  78. [85]

    Series expansions for the massive Schwinger model in Hamil- tonian lattice theory,

    C.J. Hamer, Wei-hong Zheng, and J. Oitmaa, “Series expansions for the massive Schwinger model in Hamil- tonian lattice theory,” Phys. Rev. D 56, 55–67 (1997), arXiv:hep-lat/9701015

    1997 arXiv

  79. [86]

    Eigenvalues for the mas- sive schwinger model from a finite-lattice hamiltonian approach,

    DP Crewther and CJ Hamer, “Eigenvalues for the mas- sive schwinger model from a finite-lattice hamiltonian approach,” Nuclear Physics B 170, 353–368 (1980)

    1980

  80. [87]

    Lattice Model Calculations for SU(2) Yang-Mills Theory in (1+1)-Dimensions,

    C.J. Hamer, “Lattice Model Calculations for SU(2) Yang-Mills Theory in (1+1)-Dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. B 121, 159 (1977), [Addendum: Nucl.Phys.B 132, 542 (1978)]

    1977

  81. [88]

    Se- ries analysis of U(1) and SU(2) lattice gauge theory in (2+1)-dimensions,

    C.J. Hamer, J. Oitmaa, and Wei-Hong Zheng, “Se- ries analysis of U(1) and SU(2) lattice gauge theory in (2+1)-dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D 45, 4652–4658 (1992)

    1992

  82. [89]

    SU(2) Yang-Mills theory in (1+1) dimen- sions: A finite-lattice approach,

    CJ Hamer, “SU(2) Yang-Mills theory in (1+1) dimen- sions: A finite-lattice approach,” Nuclear Physics B 195, 503–521 (1982)

    1982

  83. [90]

    Efficient basis formu- lation for 1+1 dimensional SU(2) lattice gauge theory: Spectral calculations with matrix product states,

    Mari Carmen Bauls, Krzysztof Cichy, J. Ignacio Cirac, Karl Jansen, and Stefan Khn, “Efficient basis formu- lation for 1+1 dimensional SU(2) lattice gauge theory: Spectral calculations with matrix product states,” Phys. Rev. X 7, 041046 (2017), arXiv:1707.06434 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  84. [91]

    Variational study of U(1) and SU(2) lattice gauge theories with Gaussian states in 1+1 dimensions,

    P. Sala, T. Shi, S. Khn, M.C. Bauls, E. Demler, and J.I. Cirac, “Variational study of U(1) and SU(2) lattice gauge theories with Gaussian states in 1+1 dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D 98, 034505 (2018), arXiv:1805.05190 [hep- lat]

    2018 arXiv

  85. [92]

    Finite- density phase diagram of a (1+1)-d non-abelian lat- tice gauge theory with tensor networks,

    Pietro Silvi, Enrique Rico, Marcello Dalmonte, Fer- dinand Tschirsich, and Simone Montangero, “Finite- density phase diagram of a (1+1)-d non-abelian lat- tice gauge theory with tensor networks,” (2016), 10.22331/q-2017-04-25-9, arXiv:1606.05510 [quant-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  86. [93]

    Removing Stag- gered Fermionic Matter in U(N) and SU (N) Lattice Gauge Theories,

    Erez Zohar and J. Ignacio Cirac, “Removing Stag- gered Fermionic Matter in U(N) and SU (N) Lattice Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rev. D 99, 114511 (2019), arXiv:1905.00652 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  87. [94]

    Eliminating fermionic matter fields in lattice gauge theories,

    Erez Zohar and J. Ignacio Cirac, “Eliminating fermionic matter fields in lattice gauge theories,” Phys. Rev. B98, 075119 (2018), arXiv:1805.05347 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Harmonic oscillator prepotentials in SU(2) lattice gauge theory,

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

    2005 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Loop Approach to Lattice Gauge The- ories,

    Manu Mathur, “Loop Approach to Lattice Gauge The- ories,” Nucl. Phys. B 779, 32–62 (2007), arXiv:hep- lat/0702007

    2007

  90. [98]

    SU(2) lattice gauge theory: Local dynamics on nonin- tersecting electric flux loops,

    Ramesh Anishetty and Indrakshi Raychowdhury, “SU(2) lattice gauge theory: Local dynamics on nonin- tersecting electric flux loops,” Phys. Rev. D 90, 114503 (2014), arXiv:1408.6331 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Pre- potential Formulation of Lattice Gauge Theory,

    Indrakshi Raychowdhury and Ramesh Anishetty, “Pre- potential Formulation of Lattice Gauge Theory,” PoS LA TTICE2014, 313 (2014), arXiv:1411.3068 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  92. [100]

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

    Indrakshi Raychowdhury, “Low energy spectrum of SU(2) lattice gauge theory: An alternate proposal via loop formulation,” Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 235 (2019), arXiv:1804.01304 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Quan- tum theory of angular momentum,

    J Schwinger, L Biedenharn, and H Van Dam, “Quan- tum theory of angular momentum,” (1965)

    1965

  94. [102]

    Prepotential formulation of SU(3) lat- tice gauge theory,

    Ramesh Anishetty, Manu Mathur, and Indrakshi Ray- chowdhury, “Prepotential formulation of SU(3) lat- tice gauge theory,” J. Phys. A 43, 035403 (2010), arXiv:0909.2394 [hep-lat]

    2010 arXiv

  95. [103]

    thesis, Calcutta U

    Indrakshi Raychowdhury, Prepotential Formulation of Lattice Gauge Theories , Ph.D. thesis, Calcutta U. (2013). 35

    2013

  96. [104]

    Irreducible SU(3) Schhwinger Bosons,

    Ramesh Anishetty, Manu Mathur, and Indrakshi Ray- chowdhury, “Irreducible SU(3) Schhwinger Bosons,” J. Math. Phys. 50, 053503 (2009), arXiv:0901.0644 [math- ph]

    2009 arXiv

  97. [105]

    SU(N) Irreducible Schwinger Bosons,

    Manu Mathur, Indrakshi Raychowdhury, and Ramesh Anishetty, “SU(N) Irreducible Schwinger Bosons,” J. Math. Phys. 51, 093504 (2010), arXiv:1003.5487 [math- ph]

    2010 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Quan- tum Simulations of Lattice Gauge Theories using Ultra- cold Atoms in Optical Lattices,

    Erez Zohar, J. Ignacio Cirac, and Benni Reznik, “Quan- tum Simulations of Lattice Gauge Theories using Ultra- cold Atoms in Optical Lattices,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 79, 014401 (2016), arXiv:1503.02312 [quant-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  99. [107]

    ¨ uber das paulische ¨ aquivalenzverbot,

    Pascual Jordan and Eugene Paul Wigner, “¨ uber das paulische ¨ aquivalenzverbot,” inThe Collected Works of Eugene Paul Wigner (Springer, 1993) pp. 109–129

    1993

  100. [108]

    Exact bosonization in two spatial dimensions and a new class of lattice gauge theories,

    Yu-An Chen, Anton Kapustin, and Dorde Radicevic, “Exact bosonization in two spatial dimensions and a new class of lattice gauge theories,” Annals Phys. 393, 234–253 (2018), arXiv:1711.00515 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2018 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Exact bosonization in arbitrary dimen- sions,

    Yu-An Chen, “Exact bosonization in arbitrary dimen- sions,” (2019), arXiv:1911.00017 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2019 arXiv

  102. [110]

    The principle of minimized iter- ations in the solution of the matrix eigenvalue problem,

    Walter Edwin Arnoldi, “The principle of minimized iter- ations in the solution of the matrix eigenvalue problem,” Quarterly of applied mathematics 9, 17–29 (1951)

    1951

  103. [111]

    Cornelius Lanczos, An iteration method for the solution of the eigenvalue problem of linear differential and inte- gral operators (1950)

    1950

  104. [112]

    Vibration modes of large structures by an automatic matrix-reduction method,

    IU Ojalvo and M Newman, “Vibration modes of large structures by an automatic matrix-reduction method,” AIAA Journal 8, 1234–1239 (1970)

    1970

  105. [113]

    Christopher Conway Paige, The computation of eigen- values and eigenvectors of very large sparse matrices. , Ph.D. thesis, University of London (1971)

    1971

  106. [114]

    Computational variants of the lanczos method for the eigenproblem,

    Christopher C Paige, “Computational variants of the lanczos method for the eigenproblem,” IMA Journal of Applied Mathematics 10, 373–381 (1972)

    1972

  107. [115]

    Nineteen dubious ways to compute the exponential of a matrix, twenty- five years later,

    Cleve Moler and Charles Van Loan, “Nineteen dubious ways to compute the exponential of a matrix, twenty- five years later,” SIAM review 45, 3–49 (2003)

    2003

  108. [116]

    Implementing sparse matrix-vector multiplication on throughput- oriented processors,

    Nathan Bell and Michael Garland, “Implementing sparse matrix-vector multiplication on throughput- oriented processors,” in Proceedings of the conference on high performance computing networking, storage and analysis (2009) pp. 1–11

    2009

  109. [117]

    A Numer- ical Renormalization Group for Continuum One- Dimensional Systems,

    Robert M. Konik and Yury Adamov, “A Numer- ical Renormalization Group for Continuum One- Dimensional Systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 147205 (2007), arXiv:cond-mat/0701605

    2007 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Hamiltonian simulation in the low energy subspace,

    Burak S ¸ahino˘ glu and Rolando D Somma, “Hamiltonian simulation in the low energy subspace,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.02660 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Mass gap in the weak coupling limit of (2+1)-dimensional SU(2) lat- tice gauge theory,

    Ramesh Anishetty and T.P. Sreeraj, “Mass gap in the weak coupling limit of (2+1)-dimensional SU(2) lat- tice gauge theory,” Phys. Rev. D 97, 074511 (2018), arXiv:1802.06198 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Flow-equations for hamiltonians,

    Franz Wegner, “Flow-equations for hamiltonians,” An- nalen der physik 506, 77–91 (1994)

    1994

  113. [121]

    Renormal- ization of hamiltonians,

    Stanis law D G lazek and Kenneth G Wilson, “Renormal- ization of hamiltonians,” Physical Review D 48, 5863 (1993)

    1993

  114. [122]

    Dasgupta and I

    R. Dasgupta and I. Raychowdhury, To be released (2020)

    2020

  115. [123]

    Atomic Quantum Simulation of U(N) and SU(N) Non-Abelian Lattice Gauge Theories,

    D. Banerjee, M. Bgli, M. Dalmonte, E. Rico, P. Ste- bler, U.-J. Wiese, and P. Zoller, “Atomic Quantum Simulation of U(N) and SU(N) Non-Abelian Lattice Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 125303 (2013), arXiv:1211.2242 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2013 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Constrained dynamics via the Zeno effect in quantum simulation: Implement- ing non-Abelian lattice gauge theories with cold atoms,

    K. Stannigel, P. Hauke, D. Marcos, M. Hafezi, S. Diehl, M. Dalmonte, and P. Zoller, “Constrained dynamics via the Zeno effect in quantum simulation: Implement- ing non-Abelian lattice gauge theories with cold atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 120406 (2014), arXiv:1308.0528 [quant-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Schwinger pair production with ultra- cold atoms,

    V. Kasper, F. Hebenstreit, M. Oberthaler, and J. Berges, “Schwinger pair production with ultra- cold atoms,” Phys. Lett. B 760, 742–746 (2016), arXiv:1506.01238 [cond-mat.quant-gas]. Appendix A: Quantum Link Model An alternate formulation of LGTs within the Hamilto- nian frame...

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.