Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 69 references

Statistical Mechanics of Heteropolymers from Lattice Gauge Theory

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves an exact rewrite of heteropolymer ensembles as a sign-problem-free Z2 lattice gauge theory that Monte Carlo can sample.

desk verdict Exact gauge-theory rewriting is solid; the unproved ergodicity of the MC moves is the real risk. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11476 v2 pith:HTWAXIGA submitted 2024-11-18 cond-mat.stat-mech hep-lat

Veronica Panizza , Alessandro Roggero , Philipp Hauke , Pietro Faccioli This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechhep-lat
keywords latticeheteropolymersZ2gaugetheoryMonteCarlosamplingHPmodelsignproblemquantumencodingcompactpolymerconformationsringsuppression
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 establishes an exact rewriting of the lattice heteropolymer partition function as a vacuum expectation value of a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ lattice gauge theory, with one qubit per bond, one per site, and an auxiliary fermionic determinant that removes rings. Because the resulting Boltzmann weight is real and positive for even numbers of fermion flavors, the model has no sign problem and can be sampled by ordinary Monte Carlo in both conformational and chemical sequence space. This offers a way around the two obstacles that have made compact heteropolymer ensembles hard to simulate: growth methods that become exponentially inefficient and local moves that are overwhelmingly rejected. As demonstrations, the authors reproduce the hydrophobic collapse of a short HP-model chain and report that for compact two-dimensional configurations with more than 98% occupancy, decorrelation time grows only linearly with chain length.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the fermionic determinant $\det T(\Gamma)$ of the tight-binding matrix $T_{ij}=\delta_{ij}(m_f-\bar g^2\rho_i)-\lambda^2\Gamma_{ij}$. It does two jobs: it vanishes identically for any field configuration containing an isolated ring when $m_f=4\bar g^2$ and $\lambda^2=\bar g^2$, so rings are expelled from the ensemble, and for the remaining open chain it depends only on chain length, $\det T=4^{N-\ell}\bar g^{2N}(\ell+1)$, so a chemical potential $\mu$ can fix the average length. The gauge symmetry itself, the Gauss law Eq. (1), carries the argument: it encodes the polymer's continuity, and the plaquette operator $\hat C_\square$ and endpoint-displacement operator $\hat D_{ij}$ generate the trial moves.

What would settle it

Enumerate all self-avoiding single-chain configurations on a small two-dimensional lattice with fixed endpoints and length, and check whether the graph whose edges are accepted plaquette-flip and endpoint-displacement moves is connected; any pair of configurations with no connecting path of accepted moves would disprove ergodicity and invalidate the Monte Carlo averages. A second check is to repeat the decorrelation-time measurement starting from randomly chosen compact configurations rather than the spiral Hamiltonian path, and in three dimensions, to see whether the linear scaling survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the sum over all self-avoiding single-chain configurations, with arbitrary chemical labels, is exactly the ground-space matrix element of a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ lattice gauge theory, Eq. (15). Polymer states are the tensor-product states satisfying the Gauss law Eq. (1); active bonds and chain endpoints are the electric and charge degrees of freedom. Integrating $M$ degenerate spinless fermion flavors coupled to the bond field yields the weight $(\det T(\Gamma))^M$, and the parameter choice $m_f=4\bar g^2=\lambda^2$ makes $\det T$ vanish for any configuration containing an isolated ring, while for an open chain of length $\ell$ it equals $4^{N-\ell}\bar g^{2N}(\ell+1)$. The theory therefore samples exactly one open chain whose length is controlled by a chemical potential, with no sign problem for even $M$, and the same weight supports Metropolis moves that preserve the Gauss law.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation's equilibrium averages are valid only if the local moves can connect any two polymer configurations of the same chain length while keeping the chain self-avoiding; the paper asserts this connectivity without proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Simultaneous sampling of sequence and structure becomes routine: thermodynamic averages such as hydrophobic-contact counts and endpoint-distance distributions are computed directly from the same Markov chain.
  • Ring-free single-chain ensembles with a prescribed average length can be prepared by setting one chemical potential, without the divergent number of auxiliary constraints that earlier binary encodings needed.
  • For even flavor number $M$ the weight is real and positive, so standard Metropolis updates, not complex Langevin or other sign-problem remedies, are sufficient.
  • The observed linear growth of decorrelation time with chain length, if it generalizes, would remove the exponential slowdown that has limited sampling of maximally compact lattice polymers.
  • Because the encoding is qubit-based, the partition function weight could be evaluated with quantum algorithms such as block encoding or QAOA, as the paper sketches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the exact determinant formula $\det T=4^{N-\ell}\bar g^{2N}(\ell+1)$ suggests that on small lattices the entropy $n(\ell)$ of chain lengths could be computed by exact enumeration, giving closed-form checks of the saddle-point length control.
  • Beyond the paper, the connectivity assertion could be tested as a finite-state graph problem: if some fixed-length sector is disconnected under accepted moves, equilibrium averages would be biased regardless of how fast the autocorrelation decays.
  • Beyond the paper, the flavor-symmetry analogy with chiral symmetry breaking invites the speculative hypothesis that protein-like sequence stability might be described by spontaneous breaking of residue 'flavor' symmetry; the authors mention this as a direction, not a result.
  • Beyond the paper, because the linear scaling demonstration uses a special spiral Hamiltonian path as initial condition and two-dimensional lattices, a fair stress test would be random initial compact states and three-dimensional lattices.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an exact mapping of the partition function of lattice heteropolymer models into a vacuum expectation value of a Z2 lattice gauge theory with both fermionic and bosonic degrees of freedom. The authors show that the Gauss-law constraint encodes polymer connectivity, that a determinant factor (det T)^M arising after integrating out M fermion flavors suppresses ring configurations when the fermion parameters are fixed as in Eq. (A4), and that a chemical potential term can tune the average chain length. They then introduce a Metropolis Monte Carlo scheme based on the local gauge-symmetry moves C_square and D_ij, and demonstrate applications to an HP-type heteropolymer and to sampling compact structures, where they report a linear scaling of the decorrelation time with chain length. The paper also discusses extensions to quantum computing.

Significance. If the algorithmic claims hold, this is a valuable contribution: it provides an exact, sign-problem-free rewriting of a class of lattice polymer partition functions, with a transparent mechanism for eliminating rings and a natural route toward quantum simulation. The analytical core is strong: Appendix A gives a clean proof that det T vanishes on isolated rings under the parameter choice mf = 4 gbar^2, gbar^2 = lambda^2, and Appendix B / SM Sec. D rigorously obtain det T = 4^{N-l} g^{2N} (l+1) for open chains, which is a useful, parameter-free structural result. The introduction of fermions is a construction, not a circular fit, because the ring suppression follows from the determinant structure once the parameters are fixed. The main risk is algorithmic rather than analytical: the ergodicity of the proposed Markov chain over the positive-weight subspace is asserted but not proved, and the claimed linear scaling of decorrelation time rests on limited numerical evidence. These issues are load-bearing for the Monte Carlo applications.

major comments (3)
  1. [§From polymers to LGT, after Eq. (5)] The statement that 'Two arbitrary polymer configurations with the same number of open chains can be deformed one into the other by a combination of chain deformations and terminal displacements' is central to the claim that the Monte Carlo algorithm samples the equilibrium ensemble, but it is asserted without proof or citation. Moreover, the relevant state space for the Metropolis chain is not the full set of Gauss-law states but the subset of self-avoiding single-chain configurations with positive weight. Because Appendix A proves that any configuration containing an isolated ring has det T = 0, such ring states have exactly zero Boltzmann weight and are never accepted by the Metropolis rule. The paper does not demonstrate that every pair of positive-weight self-avoiding configurations can be connected by a sequence of C_square and D_ij moves in which every intermediate configuration also has positive weight (i.e., is ring-free and self-avoiding). For nearly maximally compact states, where local moves are heavily constrained, the only connecting paths might pass through ring states. If the positive-weight subset is not connected, the averages shown in Figs. 2 and 3 are not thermal averages and the algorithmic claim fails. This gap needs to be fixed either by a proof of connectivity within the positive-weight subspace or by a systematic small-lattice enumeration showing that all self-avoiding single-chain states are mutually reachable through accepted moves.
  2. [§Computational efficiency and Fig. 3] The headline claim that the MC decorrelation time 'grows only linearly with the median chain length' is inferred from a small number of simulation points, and the examples in SM Sec. F start from a specially constructed spiral Hamiltonian path. No statistical error bars are reported for the decorrelation times, and the autocorrelation function in Eq. (S4) is averaged over trajectories whose equilibration is assumed rather than demonstrated. The linear scaling is a central algorithmic result, yet on the presented evidence it could be an artifact of the chosen initial states or of insufficient statistics. I request a more systematic study: several lattice sizes, multiple random initial configurations (not just the spiral path), and either error bars on tau or a discussion of the number of independent runs and the sensitivity to the initialization.
  3. [§MC Algorithm and Eq. (15)] The Metropolis acceptance criterion in Eq. (S1) includes the ratio of the full weights e^{L[Gamma,eta]} e^{-beta H[Gamma,eta]}, with L containing M Tr log T[Gamma]. When a proposed C_square or D_ij move produces a configuration with a ring, the acceptance probability is strictly zero since the weight vanishes. The paper does not analyze the probability that the proposed moves land on such zero-weight states, nor does it analyze the possibility that the chain gets trapped in a subset of states separated by zero-weight barriers. This is the same ergodicity concern as above, but it deserves a concrete computational check: measuring the acceptance rate of moves and testing for reducibility of the Markov chain, e.g., by comparing equilibrium distributions obtained from independent initializations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction, Ref. [16]] The reference to 'Kogout' should be 'Kogut' (J. B. Kogut, Rev. Mod. Phys. 51, 659 (1979)).
  2. [SM Appendix C] In the first paragraph of Appendix C, 'the NP model' should likely be 'the HP model', consistent with the main text.
  3. [Fig. 3 and SM Sec. F] The notation for the chain deformation operator is inconsistent: the main text and SM Fig. S6 use C_square, while SM Sec. F uses Cp. Also, the caption of Fig. 3 does not define 'median chain length' or specify how tau is estimated beyond the reference to Eq. (S4).
  4. [End Matter, after Eq. (B5)] The phrase 'can we rewritten' in the sentence preceding Eq. (B5) should read 'can be rewritten'.
  5. [Discussion and SM Table I] The statement that 'for even values of M our LGT does not suffer from a sign problem' is unnecessarily restrictive, since the determinant for open chains in Eq. (B3) is positive for any M; please clarify whether negative signs can appear for other sectors or whether the even-M condition is merely a conservative statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the LGT mapping is an exact identity, the ring-suppression determinant condition and the chain-length chemical potential are explicitly calibrated inputs, and the remaining ergodicity concern is a rigor gap, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is the exact rewriting of the lattice-polymer partition function as a Z2 gauge-theory matrix element via Eqs. (8) and (11). This is a direct algebraic identity: Gauss-law delta functions encode connectivity through Eq. (2), the determinant det T arises from an analytic Grassmann integration, and self-avoidance is imposed through HSA. No quantity entering this mapping is obtained by fitting the outputs it later explains. The ring-suppression condition mf = 4 gbar^2 and gbar^2 = lambda^2 in Appendix A is a deliberately chosen parameter set, not a fit disguised as a result: the paper proves det T = 0 on isolated rings under this choice in Eqs. (A2)-(A4). The chemical potential in Appendix B is explicitly derived and calibrated via Eq. (B11) to realize a desired average chain length ell_0; Fig. S2 merely checks that this calibration works, so it is not a fitted input called a prediction. The HP-model application uses the standard HP interaction parameters (Chh = -1, Cpp = Chp = 0) and reports well-known qualitative physics such as hydrophobic collapse and hydrophobic-core stabilization; none of these outputs is used to set the model constants. The efficiency claim of linear decorrelation time in Fig. 3 is an empirical simulation result, not an output enforced by construction. Self-citations to prior binary-encoding work in Refs. [11] and [14] provide context and motivate the new fermionic/LGT construction, but they are not load-bearing for the mapping or for the numerical claims. The assertion after Eq. (5) that two polymer configurations with the same number of open chains can be deformed into one another by the proposed moves is unproved, and if false would invalidate ergodicity and the computed averages; however, an unproved connectivity lemma is a rigor or correctness gap, not a circular step. No claim in the paper reduces by its own equations to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The construction introduces auxiliary fermion fields whose sole purpose is to remove rings via a determinant zero; this is a designed computational device, not a physical degree of freedom. The MC algorithm depends on an unproved connectivity assumption. The free parameters listed are simulation controls and coupling choices, none fitted to external data.

free parameters (6)
  • M (fermion flavor count) = 120
    Fermion flavors introduced as a computational device; the value 120 is chosen to justify the large-M formula Eq. (12) for the chemical potential.
  • mf, gbar^2, lambda^2 (fermion mass and couplings) = mf = 1, gbar^2 = lambda^2 = 1/4
    Set to satisfy the ring-removal condition mf = 4 gbar^2 and gbar^2 = lambda^2 (Eq. A4); these values are chosen, not derived from polymer physics.
  • e1 (self-avoidance energy) = 1000
    Chosen so that beta e1 >> 1 enforces the no-branching self-avoidance constraint in Eq. (8).
  • l0 (target chain length) = 9
    The desired average chain length used in the illustrative HP application; mu is set to realize it.
  • nu_a (residue abundance targets) = 0.5
    Relative abundance of hydrophobic and polar residues in the HP simulation; sets the chemical potentials mu_a = 0.
  • beta (inverse temperature) = 0.1, 1, 2
    Arbitrarily chosen to explore different thermodynamic regimes in the illustrative application.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Self-avoidance is enforced as a hard constraint by taking beta e1 >> 1 in HSA.
    The partition function of interest is the limiting case where branching configurations (rho=4 or 6) and invalid endpoints are suppressed; all numerical work uses e1=1000.
  • ad hoc to paper Any two self-avoiding polymer states with the same number of open chains are connected by the proposed C_square and D_ij moves.
    Stated after Eq. (5) without proof; required for ergodicity of the MC algorithm.
  • standard math The saddle-point and large-M limits used to derive Eq. (12) are valid.
    The chemical potential formula assumes M, mu -> infinity with mu/M fixed; the simulation uses M=120 and relies on the resulting peaked length distribution.
  • domain assumption The HP model with nearest-neighbor interactions on a 2D square lattice is representative of heteropolymer physics.
    Used to illustrate the method; the conclusions about hydrophobic collapse and sequence enrichment are model-specific.
invented entities (1)
  • M-flavor spinless fermions coupled to the bond qubits
    purpose: After Gaussian integration they contribute a factor (det T)^M that vanishes identically for configurations containing ring polymers, thereby removing rings from the ensemble.
    These fermions are a mathematical device, not physical degrees of freedom; they are integrated out and have no observable outside the construction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Statistical Mechanics of Heteropolymers from Lattice Gauge Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HTWAXIGA

@misc{pith2026241111476,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Statistical Mechanics of Heteropolymers from Lattice Gauge Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HTWAXIGA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11476}
}
abstract

Lattice models are valuable tools to gain insight into the statistical physics of heteropolymers. We rigorously map the partition function of these models into a vacuum expectation value of a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ lattice gauge theory (LGT), with both fermionic and bosonic degrees of freedom. Because the associated path integral expression is not affected by a sign problem, it is amenable to Monte Carlo (MC) sampling in both the sequence and structure space, unlike conventional polymer field theory. At the same time, since the LGT encoding relies on qubits, it provides a framework for future efforts to capitalize on the development of quantum computing hardware. We discuss two illustrative applications of our formalism: first, we use it to characterize the thermodynamically stable sequences and structures of small heteropolymers consisting of two types of residues. Next, we assess its efficiency to sample ensembles of compact structures, finding that the MC decorrelation time scales only linearly with the chain length.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11476 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Our quantum encoding, illustrated for the so-called [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Predictions of the HP model obtained by MC simula [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Number of MC steps needed to generate decorrelated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Ring configuration consisting of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Open chain configuration consisting of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. D. Bryngelson, J. N. Onuchic, N. D. Socci, and P. G. Wolynes, Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinfor- matics 21, 167 (2005)

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Kremer and K

    K. Kremer and K. Binder, Computer Physics Reports 7, 259 (1988)

    work page 1988

  3. [3]

    Madras and A

    N. Madras and A. D. Sokal, Journal of Statistical Physics 50, 109 (1988)

    work page 1988

  4. [4]

    Clisby, Phys

    N. Clisby, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 055702 (2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    H.-P. Hsu, V. Mehra, W. Nadler, and P. Grassberger, Phys. Rev. E 68, 021113 (2003)

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    K. Yue, K. M. Fiebig, P. D. Thomas, H. S. Chan, E. I. Shakhnovich, and K. A. Dill, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 92, 325 (1995)

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    Ramakrishnan, J

    R. Ramakrishnan, J. F. Pekny, and J. M. Caruthers, The Journal of Chemical Physics 103, 7592 (1995)

    work page 1995

  8. [8]

    R. Lua, A. L. Borovinskiy, and A. Y. Grosberg, Polymer 45, 717 (2004), conformational Protein Conformations

    work page 2004

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    M. L. Mansfield, The Journal of Chemical Physics 125, 154103 (2006)

    2006

  2. [10]

    M. A. Ubertini and A. Rosa, Phys. Rev. E 104, 054503 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Micheletti, P

    C. Micheletti, P. Hauke, and P. Faccioli, Physical Review Letters 127, 10.1103/physrevlett.127.080501 (2021)

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Robert, P

    A. Robert, P. K. Barkoutsos, S. Woerner, and I. Taver- nelli, npj Quantum Information 7, 38 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Perdomo-Ortiz, N

    A. Perdomo-Ortiz, N. Dickson, M. Drew-Brook, G. Rose, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Scientific Reports 2, 571 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    Slongo, P

    F. Slongo, P. Hauke, P. Faccioli, and C. Micheletti, Sci- ence Advances 9, 10.1126/sciadv.adi0204 (2023)

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    (B3) in the End Matter, an illustrative example to motivate the computational advantage of our protocol, and a review of recent progress in the simulation of LGT

    See Supplemental Material for a detailed description of our MC algorithm, integrative analytical calculations leading to Eq. (B3) in the End Matter, an illustrative example to motivate the computational advantage of our protocol, and a review of recent progress in the simulati...

  8. [16]

    J. B. Kogut, Reviews of Modern Physics 51, 659 (1979)

    1979

  9. [17]

    Yue and K

    K. Yue and K. A. Dill, Physical Review E 48, 2267 (1993)

    1993

  10. [18]

    K. F. Lau and K. A. Dill, Macromolecules 22, 3986 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    S. F. Edwards, Proceedings of the Physical Society 85, 613 (1965)

    1965

  12. [20]

    DeGennes, Scaling Concepts in Polymer Physics(Cor- nell University Press, 1979) p

    P. DeGennes, Scaling Concepts in Polymer Physics(Cor- nell University Press, 1979) p. 324

    1979

  13. [21]

    D. Yan, T. Suo, X. Zhang, X. Man, and B. Miao, Fron- tiers of Chemistry in China 6, 310 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    Vilgis, Physics Reports 336, 167 (2000)

    T. Vilgis, Physics Reports 336, 167 (2000). 6

    2000

  15. [23]

    Fredrickson, The Equilibrium Theory of Inhomoge- neous Polymers (Oxford University Press, 2005)

    G. Fredrickson, The Equilibrium Theory of Inhomoge- neous Polymers (Oxford University Press, 2005)

    2005

  16. [24]

    Orland and A

    H. Orland and A. Zee, Nuclear Physics B620, 456 (2002)

    2002

  17. [25]

    Garel, H

    T. Garel, H. Orland, and E. Pitard, Series on Directions in Condensed Matter Physics , 387 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    X. Man, K. T. Delaney, M. C. Villet, H. Orland, and G. H. Fredrickson, The Journal of Chemical Physics140, 024905 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    E. M. Lennon, G. O. Mohler, H. D. Ceniceros, C. J. Garc ´ ıa-Cervera, and G. H. Fredrickson, Multiscale Mod- eling & Simulation 6, 1347 (2008)

    2008

  20. [28]

    Aarts, J

    G. Aarts, J. Aichelin, C. Allton, A. Athenodorou, D. Bachtis, C. Bonanno, N. Brambilla, E. Bratkovskaya, M. Bruno, M. Caselle, et al., Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 133, 104070 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    T. Li, K. Fan, J. Wang, and W. Wang, Protein Engineer- ing, Design and Selection 16, 323 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    Kamtekar, J

    S. Kamtekar, J. M. Schiffer, H. Xiong, J. M. Babik, and M. H. Hecht, Science 262, 1680 (1993)

    1993

  23. [31]

    R. M. Gray, Foundations and Trends in Communications and Information Theory 2, 155 (2006)

    2006

  24. [32]

    Sinha, Eigenvalues and eigenvectors of a circulant ma- trix, in Vibration of Nearly Periodic Structures and Mis- tuned Bladed Rotors(Cambridge University Press, 2017) p

    A. Sinha, Eigenvalues and eigenvectors of a circulant ma- trix, in Vibration of Nearly Periodic Structures and Mis- tuned Bladed Rotors(Cambridge University Press, 2017) p. 175–178

    2017

  25. [33]

    K. M. Abadir and J. R. Magnus, Matrix Algebra (Cam- bridge University Press, 2005) pp. 97–118

    2005

  26. [34]

    E. A. Martinez, C. A. Muschik, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, A. Erhard, M. Heyl, P. Hauke, M. Dalmonte, T. Monz, P. Zoller, et al., Nature 534, 516 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    N. Klco, E. F. Dumitrescu, A. J. McCaskey, T. D. Morris, R. C. Pooser, M. Sanz, E. Solano, P. Lougovski, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032331 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Schweizer, F

    C. Schweizer, F. Grusdt, M. Berngruber, L. Barbiero, E. Demler, N. Goldman, I. Bloch, and M. Aidelsburger, Nature Physics 15, 1168 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    A. Mil, T. V. Zache, A. Hegde, A. Xia, R. P. Bhatt, M. K. Oberthaler, P. Hauke, J. Berges, and F. Jendrzejewski, Science 367, 1128 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Riechert, J

    H. Riechert, J. C. Halimeh, V. Kasper, L. Bretheau, E. Zohar, P. Hauke, and F. Jendrzejewski, Phys. Rev. B 105, 205141 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Kokail, C

    C. Kokail, C. Maier, R. van Bijnen, T. Brydges, M. K. Joshi, P. Jurcevic, C. A. Muschik, P. Silvi, R. Blatt, C. F. Roos, et al., Nature 569, 355 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, et al., Nature 551, 579 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    F. M. Surace, P. P. Mazza, G. Giudici, A. Lerose, A. Gambassi, and M. Dalmonte, Phys. Rev. X10, 021041 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Gonzalez-Cuadra, M

    D. Gonzalez-Cuadra, M. Hamdan, T. V. Zache, B. Braverman, M. Kornjaca, A. Lukin, S. H. Cantu, F. Liu, S.-T. Wang, A. Keesling, et al., arXiv:2410.16558 [quant-ph] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    B. Yang, H. Sun, R. Ott, H.-Y. Wang, T. V. Zache, J. C. Halimeh, Z.-S. Yuan, P. Hauke, and J.-W. Pan, Nature 587, 392 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Zhou, G.-X

    Z.-Y. Zhou, G.-X. Su, J. C. Halimeh, R. Ott, H. Sun, P. Hauke, B. Yang, Z.-S. Yuan, J. Berges, and J.-W. Pan, Science 377, 311 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Wang, W.-Y

    H.-Y. Wang, W.-Y. Zhang, Z. Yao, Y. Liu, Z.-H. Zhu, Y.- G. Zheng, X.-K. Wang, H. Zhai, Z.-S. Yuan, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 050401 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    R. C. Farrell, M. Illa, A. N. Ciavarella, and M. J. Savage, PRX Quantum 5, 020315 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    R. C. Farrell, M. Illa, A. N. Ciavarella, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. D 109, 114510 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    T. A. Cochran, B. Jobst, E. Rosenberg, Y. D. Lensky, G. Gyawali, N. Eassa, M. Will, D. Abanin, R. Acharya, L. A. Beni, et al., arXiv:2409.17142 [quant-ph] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Mildenberger, W

    J. Mildenberger, W. Mruczkiewicz, J. C. Halimeh, Z. Jiang, and P. Hauke, Nature Physics (2025)

    2025

  42. [50]

    Zohar, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 380 (2021)

    E. Zohar, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 380 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    A. N. Ciavarella and I. A. Chernyshev, Phys. Rev. D105, 074504 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    R. C. Farrell, I. A. Chernyshev, S. J. M. Powell, N. A. Zemlevskiy, M. Illa, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. D107, 054513 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Wiese, Nuclear Physics A 931, 246 (2014)

    U.-J. Wiese, Nuclear Physics A 931, 246 (2014)

    2014

  46. [54]

    Zohar, J

    E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, Reports on Progress in Physics 79, 014401 (2015)

    2015

  47. [55]

    Dalmonte and S

    M. Dalmonte and S. Montangero, Contemporary Physics 57, 388 (2016)

    2016

  48. [56]

    Carmen Ba˜ nuls and K

    M. Carmen Ba˜ nuls and K. Cichy, Reports on Progress in Physics 83, 024401 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    M. C. Ba˜ nuls, R. Blatt, J. Catani, A. Celi, J. I. Cirac, M. Dalmonte, L. Fallani, K. Jansen, M. Lewenstein, S. Montangero, et al., The European Physical Journal D 74 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    N. Klco, A. Roggero, and M. J. Savage, Reports on Progress in Physics 85, 064301 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    Aidelsburger, L

    M. Aidelsburger, L. Barbiero, A. Bermudez, T. Chanda, A. Dauphin, D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, P. R. Grzybowski, S. Hands, F. Jendrzejewski, J. J¨ unemann, et al., Philo- sophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathemat- ical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 380 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    Di Meglio, K

    A. Di Meglio, K. Jansen, I. Tavernelli, C. Alexandrou, S. Arunachalam, C. W. Bauer, K. Borras, S. Carrazza, A. Crippa, V. Croft, et al., PRX Quantum 5 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    J. C. Halimeh, M. Aidelsburger, F. Grusdt, P. Hauke, and B. Yang, arXiv:2310.12201 [cond-mat.quant-gas] (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Gily´ en, Y

    A. Gily´ en, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, in Proceed- ings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’19 (ACM, 2019)

    2019

  55. [63]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, arXiv:1411.4028 [quant-ph] (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Blekos, D

    K. Blekos, D. Brand, A. Ceschini, C.-H. Chou, R.-H. Li, K. Pandya, and A. Summer, Physics Reports 1068, 1 (2024). 7 END MA TTER Appendix A: Setting the density of ring polymers to zero Without further modifications, the ensemble defined through the partition function in Eq. (8...

    2024

  57. [65]

    We also report additional results concerning the autocorre- lation time of our simulations and the distribution of chain lengths that we recover by running our al- gorithm

    We explicitly define the Monte Carlo (MC) Malgo- rithm used in the illustrative application, including the numerical values of all the parameters. We also report additional results concerning the autocorre- lation time of our simulations and the distribution of chain lengths t...

  58. [66]

    (B3) of the End Matter, which en- ables us to set an explicit numerical value for the chemical potential µ in order to sample chains of given average length l0

    We derive Eq. (B3) of the End Matter, which en- ables us to set an explicit numerical value for the chemical potential µ in order to sample chains of given average length l0

  59. [67]

    We provide one example that illustrates computa- tional advantages of our LGT approach relative to the conventional real-space MC to sample dense lattice polymer ensembles

  60. [68]

    We provide additional figures to illustrate the con- tribution of different terms in the system’s Hamil- tonian

  61. [69]

    backbone deformation

    We review recent simulations of lattice gauge the- ories on quantum devices. Appendix C: Details about our MC algorithm To initialize our MC simulations, we generate the ini- tial configuration of the binary field Γij to (i) connect two arbitrarily chosen chain endpoints, (ii)...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.