Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

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

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A tensor-network ansatz in the loop-string-hadron basis computes static potentials and real-time string breaking in SU(2) lattice gauge theory at larger cutoffs and longer strings than previous studies.

desk verdict Honest progress report: LSH-MPS is a credible starting point for non-Abelian tensor networks, but the quantitative claims need error bars and convergence checks before they carry weight. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18301 v3 pith:NELPF6DH submitted 2025-01-30 hep-lat hep-thquant-ph

Emil Mathew , Navya Gupta , Saurabh V. Kadam , Aniruddha Bapat , Jesse Stryker , Zohreh Davoudi , Indrakshi Raychowdhury This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lathep-thquant-ph
keywords SU(2)latticegaugetheoryloop-string-hadronformulationmatrixproductstatestensornetworksstringbreakingstaticpotentialreal-timedynamicsHamiltonian
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 establishes that the loop-string-hadron (LSH) formulation of non-Abelian gauge theories can serve as the basis for practical tensor-network simulations. Using SU(2) lattice gauge theory in (1+1)D, the authors build a matrix-product-state ansatz on the gauge-invariant LSH basis and compute ground-state energies, the static potential between external charges, and real-time string-breaking dynamics. The value of this result is that tensor networks bypass the sign problem and could eventually guide efficient quantum-simulation algorithms; extending them from Abelian to non-Abelian theories is a key open step. The paper reports larger Hilbert-space cutoffs, larger volumes, and longer strings than earlier studies, bringing static and dynamical observables closer to the continuum limit.

What carries the argument

The loop-string-hadron (LSH) basis is the central object: a gauge-invariant local snapshot of the SU(2) gauge degrees of freedom in which each lattice site carries integers $(n_l, n_i, n_o)$, with the Abelian Gauss-law constraint $N_L(r)=N_R(r+1)$ enforcing gauge invariance. Because the LSH Hamiltonian has at most nearest-neighbor terms and two $U(1)$ symmetries, it admits a compact matrix-product-operator representation, and the MPS ansatz built on the truncated LSH Hilbert space carries the computation: DMRG for static quantities and two-site TDVP for real-time evolution. The string operator that creates a mesonic separation is also written in LSH operators, connecting the static potential to the dynamical string-breaking setup.

What would settle it

Run the $x=16$, $N=128$ dynamical string-breaking simulation with the bond dimension raised from 200 to, say, 400 while keeping $J_{\rm max}=5/2$; if the Loschmidt-echo profile or the electric-flux density at late times changes visibly, the premise that truncation errors are small fails at the finest spacing the paper studies. The paper's own Fig. 3 already shows bond-dimension effects at $x=16$ at later times, making this the decisive check.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the loop-string-hadron formulation, paired with a matrix-product-state ansatz, is a suitable starting point for tensor-network studies of non-Abelian gauge theories. Concretely, the authors construct an MPS on the gauge-invariant LSH basis for SU(2) in (1+1)D and use DMRG to obtain the ground-state energy and the static potential between a separated charge pair; the potential shows a linear confining region that flattens when the string breaks. They then build a long bare mesonic string, evolve it with the two-site time-dependent variational principle, and observe the string disintegrating from its ends into streaming particle–antiparticle pairs. The resulting flux-density and number-density heatmaps are presented as richer phenomenology than earlier studies achieved, and the Loschmidt-echo rate function is used to probe the string-breaking transition. The authors state that a key takeaway is that LSH is suitable for tensor-network studies and can be pushed toward continuum-limit extrapolations.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the local Hilbert-space cutoff ($J_{\rm max}$ or $n_{l,\rm max}$) and the bond dimension $D_{\rm max}$ are large enough that truncation errors do not change the reported static potentials and dynamical densities; the paper notes growing bond-dimension effects at the finest lattice spacing, so this assumption is not yet fully validated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the LSH–MPS toolbox is as suitable as claimed, static quantities like the ground-state energy and the static potential can be computed at higher cutoffs and then extrapolated to the continuum limit, a step the paper states is in progress.
  • The same toolbox can simulate dynamical string breaking with long strings and dynamical fermions, not just static charges, so real-time scattering-like processes become accessible in a sign-problem-free Hamiltonian framework.
  • Because the LSH formulation is already formulated for SU(3), periodic boundary conditions, and higher dimensions, a working (1+1)D toolbox transfers to those settings, as the authors state is underway.
  • The Loschmidt-echo rate function provides a finite-size diagnostic of string breaking; the paper's observation that profiles line up as the truncation cutoffs vary suggests it can be made a quantitative probe of the continuum critical time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the sharpest testable extension is a systematic truncation-error sweep at fixed physical volume, increasing $J_{\rm max}$ (or $n_{l,\rm max}$) and the bond dimension at $x=16$ and tracking the Loschmidt-echo peak; the paper's own Fig. 3 marks this as necessary but leaves it for future work.
  • Inference: the flux and number-density heatmaps suggest that string breaking in this regime proceeds through multiple pair-production events and subsequent collisions; quantifying pair multiplicities and correlations would turn the reported richer phenomenology into a quantitative prediction.
  • Inference: because the LSH constraints are purely Abelian, the same MPS construction may be easier to extend to (2+1)D than formulations based on non-Abelian constraints, where projected entangled-pair states could inherit the same block structure; this is a conjecture beyond the paper's explicit statements.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a matrix-product-state (MPS) tensor-network study of SU(2) lattice gauge theory in 1+1 dimensions using the loop-string-hadron (LSH) formulation. Using DMRG it computes the ground-state energy in the vacuum sector and the static potential between separated charges, and using TDVP it simulates string-breaking dynamics for an initial bare meson. The simulations reach larger lattices, larger local Hilbert-space cutoffs, and longer strings than previous SU(2) studies, and the paper concludes that the LSH framework is a suitable starting point for tensor-network studies of non-Abelian gauge theories. The paper is written as a LATTICE2024 proceedings contribution and explicitly states that continuum extrapolations and detailed error estimates are in progress.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the paper is a useful methodological step: it combines the gauge-invariant LSH basis, which reduces the non-Abelian Gauss law to an Abelian constraint, with standard MPS/DMRG/TDVP tools, and it demonstrates the feasibility of pushing SU(2) simulations to larger cutoffs and string lengths. The qualitative agreement with earlier SU(2) studies and the benchmark of the ground-state energy against the analytic massless value -2/pi provide nontrivial checks. The static-potential plateau and the Loschmidt-echo behavior are concrete, falsifiable diagnostics. The main limitation is that the quantitative claims, especially the dynamics, are not yet supported by convergence data; the paper itself acknowledges that error estimates and continuum extrapolations are to appear in future work.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Fig. 2 and Fig. 3] The 'richer phenomenology' claim rests on a single dynamical trajectory with parameters N=128, x=16, Jmax=5/2, Dmax=200. However, Fig. 3(c) at the same x=16 shows 'more pronounced bond-dimension truncation effects ... at later times' when Dmax is varied between 100 and 200, and no discarded-weight or observable-convergence data are given for the Fig. 2 run. Since the delocalized electric-field and particle-density patterns in Fig. 2 are the central evidence for the richer phenomenology, the paper should either provide a convergence study for exactly those parameters (e.g., Dmax=100/200/300 and a Jmax=7/2 check) or explicitly label Fig. 2 as an illustrative run and soften the claim. This point is load-bearing for the main dynamical conclusion.
  2. [Section 4, Fig. 1(b,c)] The static-potential results are presented without truncation-error estimates: Fig. 1(b,c) use only n_l,max=1, and the stated DMRG convergence threshold of 1e-8 controls the energy, not the local electric-flux observables or the violation of the Abelian Gauss law. Please report the AGL-penalty violation, the convergence of the static energy and local flux with n_l,max (or Jmax), and error bars before the static-potential data are used as quantitative support for string breaking. As written, the static-potential plateau is plausible but not quantitatively established.
  3. [Section 4, Fig. 1(a)] The ground-state-energy benchmark is not yet quantitative. The data points are for m/g=0.5 while the analytic line corresponds to m/g=0, and the dotted line is explicitly 'not yet a fit to data'. The manuscript should either perform a continuum-limit extrapolation with a defined fit function and uncertainties, or clearly label the plot as a qualitative comparison only. The current caption and surrounding text risk overstating the agreement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1 and Section 2] The operator definitions in Table 1 are garbled in the manuscript text, with missing subscripts and broken symbols (e.g., the displayed 'S++out' and 'L++' formulas are not readable). The table should be retypeset carefully before publication.
  2. [Reference numbering] The text cites the ITensors.jl package as reference [43], but reference [43] in the bibliography is a quantum-simulator paper; the ITensor citation appears to be [49]. The numbering should be corrected.
  3. [Section 5, Loschmidt echo] The paper states that non-analyticities in the rate function 'signify string breaking', but it does not identify or quantify any non-analyticity in Fig. 3. Please clarify how the critical time would be extracted and whether the current data are consistent with a sharp feature or only a broad peak.
  4. [Section 5 and Section 6] The conclusion that the results extend prior work 'with the possibility of continuum-limit extrapolation even for dynamical quantities' is stronger than the presented evidence; the body text repeatedly states that such extrapolations are in progress. Suggest aligning the conclusion with the stated status of the analysis.
  5. [References] References [38] and [39] are duplicated as [50] and [51] in a different entry style, and the Hamer reference appears twice as [50] and [51]; these should be merged.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the LSH-MPS results are benchmarked against independent analytic and prior MPS data, and the self-cited LSH formulation is not a reduction of the paper's computed observables.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense: the LSH Hamiltonian and operators are taken from Ref. [40], whose authors overlap with this work, but that prior work is an exact reformulation of the Kogut-Susskind Hamiltonian rather than an ansatz fitted to the present observables. The paper does not fit any parameter and then rename that fit as a prediction; instead, the DMRG ground-state energy is compared with an analytic continuum value, the static potential is compared qualitatively with an independent MPS study [24], and the dynamical string-breaking patterns are compared with independent prior studies [24, 26]. The claim that the LSH basis is a suitable tensor-network starting point is supported by the structural properties of the formulation and by the numerical benchmarks, not by a self-citation that presupposes the conclusion. No equation in the paper reduces to an input by construction, and no prior result by the same authors is invoked as a uniqueness theorem to forbid alternatives. Possible concerns about bond-dimension truncation, Jmax sensitivity, and the absence of error bars for the x=16 dynamics are correctness and convergence risks, not circularity, because they do not make any computed quantity equal to an input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on the prior LSH formulation (Ref. [40]) and on standard tensor-network approximations. There are no fitted free parameters; the hand-tuned objects are the AGL penalty coefficient and the local Hilbert-space cutoff. The LSH degrees of freedom are not invented in this paper. Truncation and penalty assumptions are acknowledged but only partially verified.

free parameters (2)
  • AGL penalty coefficient Lambda_P = 2*mu + 2*x + Jmax*(2*Jmax+1)
    Chosen by hand as an upper bound on the single-site energy to enforce the Abelian Gauss law. Not fitted to data, but it is an ad hoc Hamiltonian addition whose verification is asserted rather than shown in the paper.
  • Local Hilbert-space cutoff (Jmax or n_l,max) = n_l,max=1 for static potential; Jmax=5/2, 3/2, 7/2 for dynamics
    Chosen by hand to truncate the infinite loop Hilbert space. The paper argues for larger cutoffs than prior work but provides no truncation-error estimates, making this a free control parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The LSH Hamiltonian and operator algebra in Eq. (1) and Table 1 exactly describe the Kogut-Susskind SU(2) gauge theory with staggered fermions.
    Taken wholesale from Ref. [40]; no derivation or independent check is given in this paper beyond a citation.
  • domain assumption The ordered continuum limit at fixed m/g is Jmax or n_l,max -> infinity, then N -> infinity, then x -> infinity.
    Invoked in Sec. 4 with citation to Hamer [50]; the paper does not implement the full ordered limit.
  • domain assumption Penalty-term enforcement of the Abelian Gauss law leaves physical observables unchanged, and static charges are correctly encoded by Q_r in the penalty term.
    Sec. 4, footnote 1: the approach 'neglects any modifications to the Hamiltonian resulting from the non-vanishing static charges'; only penalty shifts are used.
  • domain assumption DMRG and TDVP with the chosen bond dimensions Dmax produce states converged enough for the reported observables.
    Sec. 4 sets a convergence threshold below 1e-8 for DMRG; Sec. 5 uses Dmax=200 with TDVP. The paper's Fig. 3 discussion shows bond-dimension truncation effects at x=16, so this assumption is only partially validated.
  • domain assumption The chosen sectors q=0, Q=N and the initial bare mesonic state of Eq. (3) are the physical sectors of interest.
    Sec. 3 restricts to q=0, Q=N; Eq. (3) constructs the initial string state from the interacting vacuum. No evidence is given that this restriction misses important sectors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tensor-network toolbox for probing dynamics of non-Abelian gauge theories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NELPF6DH

@misc{pith2026250118301,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tensor-network toolbox for probing dynamics of non-Abelian gauge theories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NELPF6DH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18301}
}
read the original abstract

Tensor-network methods enable probing dynamics of strongly interacting quantum many-body systems, including gauge theories, via Hamiltonian simulation, hence bypassing sign problems. They also have the potential to inform efficient quantum-simulation algorithms of the same theories. We develop and benchmark a matrix-product-state ansatz for the SU(2) lattice gauge theory using the loop-string-hadron formulation. This formulation has been demonstrated to be advantageous in Hamiltonian simulation of non-Abelian gauge theories. It is applicable to both SU(2) and SU(3) gauge groups, to periodic and open boundary conditions, and to 1+1 and higher dimensions. In this work, we report on progress in computing static and dynamical observables in a SU(2) gauge theory in (1+1)D, pushing the boundary of existing studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18301 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Ground-state energy in the vacuum sector plotted as a function of lattice spacing 𝑔𝑎 for various system volumes 𝑔𝐿 and for 𝐽max = 2. The theoretical value (solid black line) corresponds to 𝑚 𝑔 = 0 while the DMRG data points correspond to 𝑚 𝑔 = 0.5. (b) and (c) Properties of the static-string ground state for 𝑔𝐿 = 12, 𝑥 = 6, 𝑚 𝑔 = 1.225, and a maximum loop quantum number 𝑛𝑙,max = 1. (b) shows the static potential… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Ground-state-subtracted site-local electric-field density, Eq. (5), and (b) fermion-number density, Eq. (6), as a function of time. (c) and (d) are the same quantities as in (a) and (b) but at single time slices 𝑡 a phys = 0.0, 𝑡b phys = 3.12, and 𝑡 c phys = 7.92. (Note that 𝑡a coincides with the y-axis in the top subplots.) In the LSH formulation, this (bare) mesonic state can be written as: |𝑆[𝐴]⟩ = 𝑆ˆ 𝑟,Δ𝑟 |Ω… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Loschmidt echo plotted as a function of 𝑡phys for fixed 𝑚 𝑔 = 0.2 parameter sets (a) {𝑁, 𝑥, Δ𝑟, 𝑇} = {32, 1, 4, 3}, (b) {64, 4, 8, 1.5}, and (c) {128, 16, 16, 0.75}. where ℎˆ E(𝑟) ≔ 𝑁ˆ 𝐿 (𝑟 ) 4  𝑁ˆ 𝐿 (𝑟 ) 2 + 1  + 𝑁ˆ 𝑅 (𝑟 ) 4  𝑁ˆ 𝑅 (𝑟 ) 2 + 1  . 2. (Ground-state-subtracted) instantaneous fermion-number density at each lattice site, 𝐻N(𝑟, 𝑡) ≔ ⟨𝜓(𝑡)| [𝑛ˆ𝑖(𝑟) + 𝑛ˆ𝑜 (𝑟)] |𝜓(𝑡)⟩ − ⟨Ω[𝐴] | [𝑛ˆ𝑖(𝑟) + 𝑛ˆ𝑜 (𝑟)] |Ω[𝐴]⟩. … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Dynamics of entanglement entropy for a locally monitored lattice gauge theory

    quant-ph 2026-03 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Local projective measurements of electric flux and mass density in a 1+1D Z2 gauge theory yield size-independent late-time entanglement saturation, indicating no measurement-induced phase transition in the no-click limit.

  4. Effects of monitoring on entanglement dynamics for $1+1$D $\mathbb Z_2$ lattice gauge theory

    quant-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In the no-click limit, both local and non-local monitoring of a 1+1D Z2 lattice gauge theory produce late-time entanglement saturation values that are independent of system size, giving no evidence of a measurement-in...

  5. 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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    White,Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups,Phys

    S.R. White,Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups,Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992) 2863

    1992

  2. [2]

    Fannes, B

    M. Fannes, B. Nachtergaele and R.F. Werner,Finitely Correlated States on Quantum Spin Chains,Commun. Math. Phys.144 (1992) 443

    work page 1992

  3. [3]

    Ostlund and S

    S. Ostlund and S. Rommer,Thermodynamic Limit of Density Matrix Renormalization for the spin-1 heisenberg chain, Phys. Rev. Lett.75(1995) 3537 [cond-mat/9503107]

    arXiv 1995

  4. [4]

    Verstraete, D

    F. Verstraete, D. Porras and J.I. Cirac,Density Matrix Renormalization Group and Periodic Boundary Conditions: A Quantum Information Perspective,Phys. Rev. Lett.93 (2004) 227205 [cond-mat/0404706]

    arXiv 2004

  5. [5]

    Schollwoeck,The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals Phys.326 (2011) 96 [1008.3477]

    U. Schollwoeck,The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals Phys.326 (2011) 96 [1008.3477]

    arXiv 2011

  6. [6]

    Cirac, D

    J.I. Cirac, D. Perez-Garcia, N. Schuch and F. Verstraete,Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states: Concepts, symmetries, theorems, Rev. Mod. Phys.93 (2021) 045003 [2011.12127]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [8]

    Bañuls and K

    M.C. Bañuls and K. Cichy,Review on Novel Methods for Lattice Gauge Theories, Rept. Prog. Phys.83(2020) 024401 [1910.00257]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [9]

    Byrnes, P

    T. Byrnes, P. Sriganesh, R.J. Bursill and C.J. Hamer,Density matrix renormalization group approach to the massive Schwinger model,Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.109 (2002) 202 [hep-lat/0201007]

    arXiv 2002

Show all 51 references
  1. [10]

    Tagliacozzo and G

    L. Tagliacozzo and G. Vidal,Entanglement Renormalization and Gauge Symmetry, Phys. Rev. B83(2011) 115127 [1007.4145]

    2011 arXiv

  2. [11]

    E. Rico, T. Pichler, M. Dalmonte, P. Zoller and S. Montangero,Tensor networks for Lattice Gauge Theories and Atomic Quantum Simulation, Phys. Rev. Lett.112 (2014) 201601 [1312.3127]

    2014 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Buyens, J

    B. Buyens, J. Haegeman, K. Van Acoleyen, H. Verschelde and F. Verstraete,Matrix product states for gauge field theories,Phys. Rev. Lett.113 (2014) 091601 [1312.6654]

    2014 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Silvi, E

    P. Silvi, E. Rico, T. Calarco and S. Montangero,Lattice Gauge Tensor Networks, New J. Phys. 16(2014) 103015 [1404.7439]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [14]

    L.Tagliacozzo, A.CeliandM.Lewenstein, TensorNetworksforLatticeGaugeTheorieswith continuous groups,Phys. Rev. X4(2014) 041024 [1405.4811]. 9 Tensor-network toolbox for probing dynamics of non-Abelian gauge theories Emil Mathew

    2014 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Zohar and M

    E. Zohar and M. Burrello,Formulation of lattice gauge theories for quantum simulations, Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 054506 [1409.3085]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Rigobello, S

    M. Rigobello, S. Notarnicola, G. Magnifico and S. Montangero,Entanglement generation in (1+1)D QED scattering processes, Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) 114501 [2105.03445]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Frías-Pérez and M.C

    M. Frías-Pérez and M.C. Bañuls,Light cone tensor network and time evolution,Phys. Rev. B 106 (2022) 115117 [2201.08402]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Canals, N

    M. Canals, N. Chepiga and L. Tagliacozzo,A tensor network formulation of Lattice Gauge Theories based only on symmetric tensors, 2412.16961

    arXiv

  10. [19]

    Banuls, M.P

    M.C. Banuls, M.P. Heller, K. Jansen, J. Knaute and V. Svensson,Quantum information perspective on meson melting, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 076016 [2206.10528]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Funcke, K

    L. Funcke, K. Jansen and S. Kühn,Exploring the CP-violating Dashen phase in the Schwinger model with tensor networks, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 014504 [2303.03799]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [22]

    Schneider, M.C

    M. Schneider, M.C. Bañuls, K. Cichy and C.J.D. Lin,Parton Distribution Functions in the Schwinger Model with Tensor Networks, PoS LATTICE2024(2025) 024 [2409.16996]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [23]

    Belyansky, S

    R. Belyansky, S. Whitsitt, N. Mueller, A. Fahimniya, E.R. Bennewitz, Z. Davoudi et al., High-Energy Collision of Quarks and Mesons in the Schwinger Model: From Tensor Networks to Circuit QED, Phys. Rev. Lett.132 (2024) 091903 [2307.02522]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [24]

    S. Kühn, E. Zohar, J.I. Cirac and M.C. Bañuls,Non-Abelian string breaking phenomena with Matrix Product States,JHEP 07(2015) 130 [1505.04441]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [25]

    Bañuls, K

    M.C. Bañuls, K. Cichy, J.I. Cirac, K. Jansen and S. Kühn,Efficient basis formulation for 1+1 dimensional SU(2) lattice gauge theory: Spectral calculations with matrix product states, Phys. Rev. X7(2017) 041046 [1707.06434]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [26]

    P.Sala,T.Shi,S.Kühn,M.C.Bañuls,E.DemlerandJ.I.Cirac, VariationalstudyofU(1)and SU(2) lattice gauge theories with Gaussian states in 1+1 dimensions,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 034505 [1805.05190]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [27]

    Silvi, Y

    P. Silvi, Y. Sauer, F. Tschirsich and S. Montangero,Tensor network simulation of an SU(3) lattice gauge theory in 1D, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 074512 [1901.04403]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [28]

    Rigobello, G

    M. Rigobello, G. Magnifico, P. Silvi and S. Montangero,Hadrons in (1+1)D Hamiltonian hardcore lattice QCD, 2308.04488

    arXiv

  19. [29]

    Hayata, Y

    T. Hayata, Y. Hidaka and K. Nishimura,Dense QCD2 with matrix product states, JHEP 07 (2024) 106 [2311.11643]. 10 Tensor-network toolbox for probing dynamics of non-Abelian gauge theories Emil Mathew

    2024 arXiv

  20. [30]

    Bender, P

    J. Bender, P. Emonts, E. Zohar and J.I. Cirac,Real-time dynamics in 2+1d compact QED using complex periodic Gaussian states,Phys. Rev. Res.2(2020) 043145 [2006.10038]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [31]

    Emonts, M.C

    P. Emonts, M.C. Bañuls, I. Cirac and E. Zohar,Variational Monte Carlo simulation with tensor networks of a pureZ3 gauge theory in (2+1)d, Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 074501 [2008.00882]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [32]

    Magnifico, T

    G. Magnifico, T. Felser, P. Silvi and S. Montangero,Lattice quantum electrodynamics in (3+1)-dimensions at finite density with tensor networks,Nature Commun.12(2021) 3600 [2011.10658]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [33]

    Robaina, M.C

    D. Robaina, M.C. Bañuls and J.I. Cirac,Simulating 2+ 1𝐷 𝑍3 Lattice Gauge Theory with an Infinite Projected Entangled-Pair State,Phys. Rev. Lett.126 (2021) 050401 [2007.11630]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [34]

    Emonts, A

    P. Emonts, A. Kelman, U. Borla, S. Moroz, S. Gazit and E. Zohar,Finding the ground state of a lattice gauge theory with fermionic tensor networks: A(2+ 1)𝐷 𝑍2 demonstration, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 014505 [2211.00023]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [35]

    Cataldi, G

    G. Cataldi, G. Magnifico, P. Silvi and S. Montangero,Simulating(2+ 1)𝐷 SU(2) Yang-Mills lattice gauge theory at finite density with tensor networks,Phys. Rev. Res.6 (2024) 033057 [2307.09396]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [36]

    Kelman, U

    A. Kelman, U. Borla, P. Emonts and E. Zohar,Projected Entangled Pair States for Lattice Gauge Theories with Dynamical Fermions, 2412.16951

    arXiv

  27. [37]

    Bañuls, K

    M.C. Bañuls, K. Cichy, J.I. Cirac, K. Jansen and S. Kühn,Tensor Networks and their use for Lattice Gauge Theories, PoS LATTICE2018(2018) 022 [1810.12838]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [38]

    Meurice, R

    Y. Meurice, R. Sakai and J. Unmuth-Yockey,Tensor lattice field theory for renormalization and quantum computing,Rev. Mod. Phys.94(2022) 025005 [2010.06539]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [39]

    Magnifico, G

    G. Magnifico, G. Cataldi, M. Rigobello, P. Majcen, D. Jaschke, P. Silvi et al.,Tensor Networks for Lattice Gauge Theories beyond one dimension: a Roadmap, 2407.03058

    arXiv

  30. [40]

    Raychowdhury and J.R

    I. Raychowdhury and J.R. Stryker,Loop, String, and Hadron Dynamics in SU(2) Hamiltonian Lattice Gauge Theories,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 114502 [1912.06133]

    2020 arXiv

  31. [41]

    Davoudi, I

    Z. Davoudi, I. Raychowdhury and A. Shaw,Search for efficient formulations for Hamiltonian simulation of non-Abelian lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) 074505 [2009.11802]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [42]

    Cochran et al.,Visualizing Dynamics of Charges and Strings in (2+1)D Lattice Gauge Theories, 2409.17142

    T.A. Cochran et al.,Visualizing Dynamics of Charges and Strings in (2+1)D Lattice Gauge Theories, 2409.17142

    arXiv

  33. [43]

    De et al.,Observation of string-breaking dynamics in a quantum simulator, 2410.13815

    A. De et al.,Observation of string-breaking dynamics in a quantum simulator, 2410.13815

    arXiv

  34. [44]

    Gonzalez-Cuadra et al.,Observation of string breaking on a (2 + 1)D Rydberg quantum simulator, 2410.16558

    D. Gonzalez-Cuadra et al.,Observation of string breaking on a (2 + 1)D Rydberg quantum simulator, 2410.16558. 11 Tensor-network toolbox for probing dynamics of non-Abelian gauge theories Emil Mathew

    arXiv

  35. [45]

    Ciavarella,String Breaking in the Heavy Quark Limit with Scalable Circuits, 2411.05915

    A.N. Ciavarella,String Breaking in the Heavy Quark Limit with Scalable Circuits, 2411.05915

    arXiv

  36. [46]

    Crippa, K

    A. Crippa, K. Jansen and E. Rinaldi,Analysis of the confinement string in (2 + 1)-dimensional Quantum Electrodynamics with a trapped-ion quantum computer, 2411.05628

    arXiv

  37. [47]

    Liu, W.-Y

    Y. Liu, W.-Y. Zhang, Z.-H. Zhu, M.-G. He, Z.-S. Yuan and J.-W. Pan,String breaking mechanism in a lattice Schwinger model simulator, 2411.15443

    arXiv

  38. [48]

    Kogut and L

    J.B. Kogut and L. Susskind,Hamiltonian Formulation of Wilson’s Lattice Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. D11(1975) 395

    1975

  39. [49]

    Fishman, S.R

    M. Fishman, S.R. White and E.M. Stoudenmire,The ITensor Software Library for Tensor Network Calculations,SciPost Phys. Codebases(2022) 4 [2007.14822]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [50]

    Hamer,SU(2) Yang-Mills Theory in (1+1)-dimensions: A Finite Lattice Approach,Nucl

    C. Hamer,SU(2) Yang-Mills Theory in (1+1)-dimensions: A Finite Lattice Approach,Nucl. Phys. B195(1982) 503

    1982

  41. [51]

    Hamer,SU(2) Yang-Mills Theory in (1+1)-dimensions: A Finite Lattice Approach,Nucl

    C.J. Hamer,SU(2) Yang-Mills Theory in (1+1)-dimensions: A Finite Lattice Approach,Nucl. Phys. B195(1982) 503

    1982

  42. [52]

    Haegeman, J.I

    J. Haegeman, J.I. Cirac, T.J. Osborne, I. Pizorn, H. Verschelde and F. Verstraete, Time-Dependent Variational Principle for Quantum Lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.107 (2011) 070601 [1103.0936]

    2011 arXiv

  43. [53]

    Haegeman, C

    J. Haegeman, C. Lubich, I. Oseledets, B. Vandereycken and F. Verstraete,Unifying time evolution and optimization with matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B94(2016) 165116. 12

    2016

Pith tools

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