Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

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

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper compiles SU(2) lattice gauge theory onto qudit circuits and gives elementary-gate counts for any truncation, verifying the qutrit case on a cube.

desk verdict Verified qutrit cube simulation and genuinely useful qudit compilation primitives, but the arbitrary-d resource claims hang on an unproven invertibility conjecture. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10945 v1 pith:2YHJPCG7 submitted 2025-06-12 quant-ph hep-latnucl-th

Jacky Jiang , Natalie Klco , Olivia Di Matteo This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phhep-latnucl-th PACS 03.67.Lx11.15.Ha
keywords latticegaugetheorySU(2)quditquantumcomputingcompilationuniformlycontrolledrotationsGraycodeTrottersimulationresourceestimation
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

Simulating non-Abelian gauge fields such as SU(2) on a quantum computer requires a plan for encoding the field and a count of the elementary gates needed to evolve it. This paper supplies both: it works in the angular-momentum basis where each lattice link is a qudit, and it constructs the Trotterized evolution of one plaquette at truncation $d$ using $(d-1)^4(2d^4+30)$ generalized controlled-X gates with depth $(d-1)^4(4d^4+31)$, which it presents as the first elementary-gate-level resource estimate for this representation. It then demonstrates a full qutrit-digitized ($d=3$) SU(2) simulation on a cube, matching exact real-time evolution, and parallelizes opposite cube faces to halve the circuit depth. Along the way it improves a general qudit compilation primitive, the uniformly-controlled qudit rotation, roughly halving the previous GCX count, and introduces subspace gating that lets low-dimensional subroutines run inside higher-dimensional qudit circuits. If the construction is right, the paper gives a concrete, code-backed blueprint for compiling lattice gauge theories onto near-term qudit hardware.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the gauge-variant completion of the plaquette operator, Eq. (2): a sum of four-qudit transition terms $X_{pp'}X_{qq'}X_{rr'}X_{ss'}$ controlled by projectors $\Pi_i\Pi_j\Pi_k\Pi_l$ chosen so that Gauss's law and the angular-momentum triangle inequalities hold. Around that operator the paper builds three mechanisms: the $d$-ary reflected Gray code, which orders control words so that a uniformly-controlled qudit rotation decomposes into $d^k$ single-qudit rotations and about $d^k$ GCX gates (roughly half the previous count); subspace gating, in which an auxiliary qudit's dimension tracks lattice connectivity rather than field truncation and gates a low-dimensional subroutine on whether the data qudits are in the right subspace; and control-restricted rotations, which exploit the smaller control-word sets allowed by the physics and, where the angle-transformation matrix $M$ is singular, are repaired by inserted GCX gates. The $D_4$ symmetry of the plaquette reduces the number of distinct terms from $(d-1)^4$ to a doubly-triangular number, cutting the classical preprocessing needed to build the operator.

What would settle it

Compute the rank of the angle-transformation matrix $M$ defined in Eq. (5) for, say, $d=5$, $k=3$ and $d=7$, $k=4$; a singular $M$ for any claimed $(d,k)$ would invalidate the upper-bound gate counts, while full rank at these values would support the conjecture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a compilation strategy rather than a new physics result. The authors construct the SU(2) plaquette operator in the total-angular-momentum basis as a gauge-variant completion: a sum over $(d-1)^4$ distinct products $X_{pp'}X_{qq'}X_{rr'}X_{ss'}$ of adjacent-level flip operators, each gated by projectors on the four control links that enforce Gauss's law and angular-momentum triangle inequalities. Each such term is decomposed into elementary qudit gates using three techniques: subspace gating (an auxiliary qudit verifies that the target links lie in the right subspace, so qubit-level subroutines can run inside qutrit or qudit circuits), uniformly-controlled qudit rotations based on the $d$-ary reflected Gray code, and control-restricted rotations for the smaller control-word sets that actually occur in the gauge theory. The resulting resource counts for one plaquette evolution at truncation $d$ are $(d-1)^4(2d^4+30)$ GCX gates and depth $(d-1)^4(4d^4+31)$. The qutrit cube simulation uses 14 qutrits and 10,752 GCX gates per Trotter step, and its electric-energy observable tracks the exact global-basis evolution.

Load-bearing premise

The counting formulas assume that the angle-transformation matrix built from the $d$-ary reflected Gray code is invertible for every truncation $d$ and control-word set; the paper shows this for the qutrit and qudit cases it compiles, but does not prove it in general, and in one restricted case the unmodified matrix is singular and needed manual repair.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any SU(2) lattice gauge theory simulation in the total-$j$ qudit encoding can use these decompositions and the reported GCX and depth counts as a cost model at every truncation $d$.
  • The uniformly-controlled qudit rotation decomposition applies to qudit state preparation and general unitary synthesis, so its roughly two-fold GCX improvement lowers compilation costs outside lattice gauge theory.
  • Mixed-dimensional qudit systems, where auxiliary qudits are small while data qudits are large, become a practical compilation choice: the paper shows a ququart auxiliary suffices for arbitrary $d$ under the current connectivity.
  • Evolving opposite faces of a cube in parallel halves circuit depth, a pattern that extends to plaquettes in a three-dimensional hypercubic lattice.
  • Because each $\Pi\Pi\Pi\Pi XXXX$ term returns the state to the physical subspace, error mitigation by subspace verification can be applied at a sub-Trotter-step frequency.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If a general invertible decomposition of control-restricted qudit rotations is found, the reported qudit resource counts would roughly halve, since the paper explicitly labels Table IV as an upper bound pending that hypothesized decomposition.
  • The same Gray-code angle transform may yield a general criterion for when a restricted control-word set admits an invertible matrix $M$, which would be a reusable tool for qudit compiler design; the paper only conjectures this.
  • The subspace-gating tradeoff between auxiliary-qudit dimension and gate count suggests that hardware with tunable qudit dimensions could dynamically choose the most efficient operating point for a given lattice geometry.
  • The cube-level parallelization implies that full three-dimensional lattice simulations could be organized as cubic volumes with pairwise face evolution, potentially keeping circuit-depth growth closer to a volume tiling than to a naive face-by-face Trotterization.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper addresses the digital quantum simulation of SU(2) lattice gauge theory using qudit encodings of the gauge field in the total-angular-momentum (link-extended) basis. The authors develop improved circuit decompositions for uniformly-controlled qudit rotations and for control-restricted qudit rotations, introduce a technique called Subspace Gating, and apply these tools to synthesize the Trotterized evolution of the plaquette operator for arbitrary truncation level d (i.e., qudit dimension). They report elementary-gate resource estimates for one plaquette evolution, with a GCX gate count of (d-1)^4(2d^4+30), and they present a complete, PennyLane-verified real-time simulation of a qutrit-digitized SU(2) cube, including a parallelization of opposite-face evolutions. The qutrit simulation is validated against exact numerical evolution in the global physical-state basis, and the resource counts for the qutrit case are cross-checked with PennyLane.

Significance. If the arbitrary-d resource estimates are correct, this work provides a concrete and much-needed blueprint for compiling non-Abelian lattice gauge theories onto qudit hardware at the elementary-gate level, a step beyond previous estimates that stopped at higher-level primitives. The qutrit cube simulation is a valuable, code-backed demonstration of an end-to-end qudit LGT simulation, with the novel aspects of mixed-dimensional auxiliary qudits, Subspace Gating, and face-wise parallelization. The improved uniformly-controlled qudit rotation decomposition is a useful primitive for general qudit compilation. The paper also explicitly frames its resource counts as upper bounds and provides an executable open-source implementation. However, the arbitrary-d scaling rests on an unproven algebraic conjecture about the invertibility of the angle-transformation matrix M, and the qutrit verification does not test this conjecture because it uses a manually corrected version of M for a different control set.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (9), Table IV] The arbitrary-d resource estimate (d-1)^4(2d^4+30) relies on the invertibility of the matrix M defined in Eq. (5) for the control set C = Z2 × Z_d^4 used in Eq. (9). The paper only conjectures this invertibility in Section III C (after Eq. (6)), and provides no proof. The qutrit demonstration does not validate the conjecture: it uses a different control set (Eq. (8)) and manually corrects a singular M with 12 additional GCX gates (Appendix E). If M is singular for some d, the circuit described in Table IV does not implement the plaquette evolution and the reported GCX count is not a valid upper bound. To make the central claim rigorous, the authors should either prove the conjecture for product control sets, or provide a verified implementation for at least one d > 3 (e.g., d = 4) against exact evolution, or explicitly state in the abstract and introduction that the arbitrary-d resource estimates are conditional on this conjecture.
  2. [Section II A, Eq. (4)] The statement that every pairing of an XXXX operator with a projector from the set Cpqrs in Eq. (4) has a non-zero physical transition matrix element is said to be 'verified numerically for d ≤ 9' in the text below Eq. (4). This claim underpins the construction of the GVC for arbitrary d, including the enumeration of terms used in the arbitrary-d resource counts. The paper should either supply a proof valid for all d or qualify the arbitrary-d construction as numerically verified only up to d = 9. As written, the paper asserts the construction is 'applicable for any gauge field truncation' based on a finite numerical check.
  3. [Section V, Table IV and surrounding text] The paragraph after Table IV states that 'Table IV serves as a resource upper bound in the absence of the hypothesized decomposition of Rd,k a (C, θ).' This is confusing because Table IV itself uses the product control set C = Z2 × Z_d^4, which is precisely the case covered by the conjecture in Section III C, not by a separate 'hypothesized decomposition.' The paper should clarify whether Table IV is a proven upper bound under the conjecture (which is unproven) or a conditional estimate, and align the abstract and introduction with that clarification.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table III and surrounding text] The text says PennyLane found exact agreement with Table III except for depth, which was reduced from 9314 to 9284, but the table still lists 9314. The authors should state explicitly that the reported values are pre-PennyLane-optimization and that the PennyLane-optimized depth is 9284, or update the table accordingly.
  2. [Appendix H] Appendix H claims that all H gates can be removed from the entire cube simulation via Hadamard-GCX rewrite rules, yet Tables II and III count 128 and 768 H gates, respectively. The paper should clarify that the resource tables are before this optimization is applied, so that the claim in Appendix H does not appear to contradict the tables.
  3. [Eq. (9)] The control set in Eq. (9) is typeset as '{w ∈ Z2 × Z4 3}', which is likely a typo for '{w ∈ Z2 × Z_d^4}' since the context is the qudit case with dimension d; this should be corrected for readability.
  4. [Section III A, resource count paragraph] The asymptotic statement 'our decomposition is a 2× improvement on the GCX gate count and depth in the limit that d → ∞' is correct as stated, but the exact count in Appendix B includes an additional (k-1) GCX gates for odd d; it would be helpful to include this caveat in the main text where the 2× improvement is claimed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: resource counts are derived from explicit circuit constructions and the qutrit simulation is verified against an independent exact simulation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are the elementary-gate resource estimates for the SU(2) plaquette operator and a qutrit cube simulation. The resource counts follow from explicit circuit decompositions: the GVC plaquette operator is constructed from published SU(2) matrix elements (Eqs. 2-4, A1), the controlled-rotation subroutines are built from explicit Gray-code constructions (Eq. 5, Appendix B, D), and the reported GCX/RZ/X/H counts are obtained by summing gates in those circuits (Tables II-IV). No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no quantity is defined in terms of the quantity it is claimed to derive. The qutrit simulation is verified by comparing observables with exact numerical results in a global physical-state basis (Appendix G, Table X), not by comparing the compiled circuit with its own output. The main caveat, the invertibility of the angle-transformation matrix M for arbitrary control-word sets, is explicitly disclosed by the authors as a conjecture: 'we conjecture our particular implementation yields an invertible M' (Section III C), and the resource table is presented as an 'upper bound' in the absence of the 'hypothesized decomposition' (Section V). An unproven algebraic premise is a correctness risk, not circularity, because the paper does not presuppose the conclusion. The self-citations to Refs. [17,24,104] provide background representation and matrix-element formulas that are independent inputs; the resource estimates are not forced by those citations. No circular step is present.

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

No free parameters are fitted; the resource counts are derived from circuit constructions. The main external inputs are the prior representation of SU(2) LGT and the gate cost model. The key unproven internal assumptions are the invertibility of the Gray-code matrix and the non-zero pairing conjecture for d>9.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The total-angular-momentum link basis of Refs. [17,104] faithfully represents SU(2) lattice gauge theory dynamics relevant for the simulation.
    The entire compilation targets this representation; if the representation omits needed degrees of freedom, the simulation would not correspond to SU(2) LGT. Invoked throughout Section II.
  • domain assumption Gauge-variant completion freedom allows arbitrary assignment of matrix elements on the unphysical subspace without affecting physical evolution.
    Used in Eq. 2 and Section II A to simplify the plaquette operator to a sum of controlled XXXX terms; follows from Ref. [17].
  • ad hoc to paper Every pairing of an XXXX operator with a projector from the set Cpqrs in Eq. 4 has a non-zero physical transition matrix element for all d.
    The paper states this is verified numerically only for d <= 9 (Section II A, text after Eq. 4) yet relies on it for the arbitrary-d description and resource scaling.
  • ad hoc to paper The d-ary reflected Gray code construction yields an invertible angle-transformation matrix M for the full uniform control set at all d and k.
    The resource counts in Section III A and Appendix B assume the linear system theta = M beta can be inverted; no proof is given, and the related restricted-case M is found non-invertible (Section IV A, Appendix E).
  • domain assumption All GCX gates in the cost model have equal cost regardless of control value or Xij subspace.
    Stated in Section III: 'All GCX gates are assigned the same cost in our cost model'; this affects the meaning of the reported resource counts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-Abelian dynamics on a cube: improving quantum compilation through qudit-based simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2YHJPCG7

@misc{pith2026250610945,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-Abelian dynamics on a cube: improving quantum compilation through qudit-based simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2YHJPCG7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10945}
}
read the original abstract

Recent developments in mapping lattice gauge theories relevant to the Standard Model onto digital quantum computers identify scalable paths with well-defined quantum compilation challenges toward the continuum. As an entry point to these challenges, we address the simulation of SU(2) lattice gauge theory. Using qudit registers to encode the digitized gauge field, we provide quantum resource estimates, in terms of elementary qudit gates, for arbitrarily high local gauge field truncations. We then demonstrate an end-to-end simulation of real-time, qutrit-digitized SU(2) dynamics on a cube. Through optimizing the simulation, we improved circuit decompositions for uniformly-controlled qudit rotations, an algorithmic primitive for general applications of quantum computing. The decompositions also apply to mixed-dimensional qudit systems, which we found advantageous for compiling lattice gauge theory simulations. Furthermore, we parallelize the evolution of opposite faces in anticipation of similar opportunities arising in three-dimensional lattice volumes. This work details an ambitious executable for future qudit hardware and attests to the value of codesign strategies between lattice gauge theory simulation and quantum compilation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10945 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. We use single qudits to encode the gauge field at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Graphical representation of how [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Quantum circuit for a single Trotter step in the time evolution of SU(2) gauge fields on a cube. The simulation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The two-qudit GCX gate applies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The unitary exp( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Decomposition of exp( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Expectation value of the electric energy contri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Circuit decomposition of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Applying an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. An alternate decomposition to Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. The qudit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. The qudit Toffoli gate, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. (top) We construct larger [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_18.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. Alternative decomposition of Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22. All [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_22.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Local Thermalization of SU(2) Lattice Gauge Fields on Quantum Computers

    hep-lat 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Quantum hardware simulation of SU(2) lattice gauge thermalization matches classical extrapolations up to 101 plaquettes after error mitigation, establishing feasibility for chaotic quantum field systems.

  2. Perturbation theory, irrep truncations, and state preparation methods for quantum simulations of SU(3) lattice gauge theory

    hep-lat 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A site-singlet energy truncation plus strong-coupling-perturbation-inspired circuits prepares SU(3) lattice gauge theory ground states with percent-level fidelity at g≈1 on small lattices, with reduced resource costs.

  3. Probing Hadron Scattering in Lattice Gauge Theories on Qudit Quantum Computers

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Proposed qudit circuits simulate meson-antimeson scattering in a spin-1 U(1) lattice gauge theory and remain accurate under realistic dephasing and depolarization noise.

  4. Efficient Qudit Circuit for Quench Dynamics of $2+1$D Quantum Link Electrodynamics

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A matter-integrated-out reformulation of 2+1D U(1) quantum link electrodynamics is translated into explicit qudit circuits, with Trotterized simulations matching exact dynamics on small lattices.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

128 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    decompose exp( −iτ (P Π) X X X X) into the circuit in Figure 8 with Subspace Gating (Section III B),

  2. [2]

    decompose the remaining Control-Restricted Qu- dit Rotations into elementary qutrit gates (Sec- tion III C),

  3. [3]

    In step 1, we decompose exp( −iτ (P Π) X X X X) by Subspace Gating the plaquette links to enable the qubit decomposition of exp(−iτ (P Π) XXXX )

    apply the decomposed circuit 16 times, varying pa- rameters for each X X X X, to implement e−iτ ˆ□(1) . In step 1, we decompose exp( −iτ (P Π) X X X X) by Subspace Gating the plaquette links to enable the qubit decomposition of exp(−iτ (P Π) XXXX ). We factor out Hadamard gates (H) and GCX gates to obtain the circuit in Figure 8. The subspaces of Hij and ...

  4. [4]

    1” which is the sole child of its parent branch to the label of the near- est left branch, which is “2

    on opposite cube faces occurs in parallel. As such, the gate counts are double that of a single ˆ□(1) (last row of Table II) while the depth remains the same. Repeating the parallelized face evolution thrice to evolve all six faces, and incorporat- ing the electric operator ˆE2 (row 2) gives the total resource estimates for one Trotter step (last row). Th...

    2023

  5. [5]

    K. G. Wilson, Confinement of quarks, Phys. Rev. D 10, 2445 (1974)

    1974

  6. [6]

    Kogut and L

    J. Kogut and L. Susskind, Hamiltonian formulation of Wilson’s lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D 11, 395 (1975)

    1975

  7. [7]

    Jo´ o, C

    B. Jo´ o, C. Jung, N. H. Christ, W. Detmold, R. Ed- wards, M. Savage, and P. Shanahan (USQCD), Status and Future Perspectives for Lattice Gauge Theory Cal- culations to the Exascale and Beyond, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 199 (2019), arXiv:1904.09725 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Carlson, M

    J. Carlson, M. J. Savage, R. Gerber, K. Antypas, D. Bard, R. Coffey, E. Dart, S. Dosanjh, J. Hack, I. Monga, et al., Nuclear Physics Exascale Requirements Review: An Office of Science Review sponsored jointly by Advanced Scientific Computing Research and Nu- clear Physics, June 15 - 17, 2016, Gaithersburg, Mary- land , Tech. Rep. (Lawrence Berkeley Nation...

    2016

Show all 128 references
  1. [9]

    Byrnes and Y

    T. Byrnes and Y. Yamamoto, Simulating lattice gauge theories on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. A 73, 022328 (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0510027

    2006 arXiv

  2. [10]

    M. C. Ba˜ nulset al., Simulating Lattice Gauge Theories within Quantum Technologies, Eur. Phys. J. D 74, 165 (2020), arXiv:1911.00003 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Aidelsburger et al

    M. Aidelsburger et al. , Cold atoms meet lattice gauge theory, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 380, 20210064 (2021), arXiv:2106.03063 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, A. B. Balantekin, T. Bhat- tacharya, M. Carena, W. A. de Jong, P. Draper, A. El-Khadra, N. Gemelke, M. Hanada, D. Kharzeev, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, J. Liu, M. Lukin, Y. Meurice, C. Monroe, B. Nachman, G. Pagano, J. Preskill, E. Ri- naldi, A. Roggero, D. I. ...

    2023

  5. [13]

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Quantum simulation of fundamental parti- cles and forces, Nature Rev. Phys. 5, 420 (2023), arXiv:2404.06298 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Zohar, J

    E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. 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

  7. [15]

    Banerjee, M

    D. Banerjee, M. B¨ ogli, 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

  8. [16]

    Zohar, J

    E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, Quantum simula- tions of gauge theories with ultracold atoms: local gauge invariance from angular momentum conservation, Phys. Rev. A 88, 023617 (2013), arXiv:1303.5040 [quant-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Zohar and M

    E. Zohar and M. Burrello, Formulation of lattice gauge theories for quantum simulations, Phys. Rev. D 91, 054506 (2015), arXiv:1409.3085 [quant-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Zohar, J

    E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, Quantum Sim- ulations of Lattice Gauge Theories using Ultracold Atoms in Optical Lattices, Rept. Prog. Phys.79, 014401 (2016), arXiv:1503.02312 [quant-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Zohar and J

    E. Zohar and J. I. Cirac, Eliminating fermionic matter fields in lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. B 98, 075119 (2018), arXiv:1805.05347 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Raychowdhury and J

    I. Raychowdhury and J. 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]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    N. Klco, J. R. Stryker, and M. J. Savage, SU(2) non- Abelian gauge field theory in one dimension on digital quantum computers, Phys. Rev. D 101, 074512 (2020), arXiv:1908.06935 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    H. Lamm, S. Lawrence, and Y. Yamauchi (NuQS), General Methods for Digital Quantum Simulation of Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. D 100, 034518 (2019), arXiv:1903.08807 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Davoudi, I

    Z. Davoudi, I. Raychowdhury, and A. Shaw, Search for efficient formulations for Hamiltonian simulation of non-Abelian lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D 104, 074505 (2021), arXiv:2009.11802 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A. J. Buser, H. Gharibyan, M. Hanada, M. Honda, and J. Liu, Quantum simulation of gauge theory via orbifold lattice, JHEP 09, 034, arXiv:2011.06576 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Y. Ji, H. Lamm, and S. Zhu (NuQS), Gluon Field Digitization via Group Space Decimation for Quan- tum Computers, Phys. Rev. D 102, 114513 (2020), arXiv:2005.14221 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Kreshchuk, W

    M. Kreshchuk, W. M. Kirby, G. Goldstein, H. Beau- chemin, and P. J. Love, Quantum simulation of quantum field theory in the light-front formulation, Phys. Rev. A 105, 032418 (2022), arXiv:2002.04016 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    C. W. Bauer, M. Freytsis, and B. Nachman, Simulat- ing Collider Physics on Quantum Computers Using Ef- fective Field Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 212001 (2021), arXiv:2102.05044 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Ciavarella, N

    A. Ciavarella, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Trailhead for quantum simulation of SU(3) Yang-Mills lattice gauge theory in the local multiplet basis, Phys. Rev. D 103, 094501 (2021), arXiv:2101.10227 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Wiese, From quantum link models to D-theory: a resource efficient framework for the quantum simula- tion and computation of gauge theories, Phil

    U.-J. Wiese, From quantum link models to D-theory: a resource efficient framework for the quantum simula- tion and computation of gauge theories, Phil. Trans. A. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 380, 20210068 (2021), arXiv:2107.09335 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    J. F. Haase, L. Dellantonio, A. Celi, D. Paulson, A. Kan, K. Jansen, and C. A. Muschik, A resource efficient ap- proach for quantum and classical simulations of gauge theories in particle physics, Quantum 5, 393 (2021), arXiv:2006.14160 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    S. V. Kadam, I. Raychowdhury, and J. R. Stryker, Loop-string-hadron formulation of an SU(3) gauge the- ory with dynamical quarks, Phys. Rev. D 107, 094513 (2023), arXiv:2212.04490 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Davoudi, A

    Z. Davoudi, A. F. Shaw, and J. R. Stryker, Gen- eral quantum algorithms for Hamiltonian simulation with applications to a non-Abelian lattice gauge theory, Quantum 7, 1213 (2023), arXiv:2212.14030 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Pardo, T

    G. Pardo, T. Greenberg, A. Fortinsky, N. Katz, and E. Zohar, Resource-efficient quantum simulation of lat- tice gauge theories in arbitrary dimensions: Solving for Gauss’s law and fermion elimination, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023077 (2023), arXiv:2206.00685 [quant-ph]. 20

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    H. Liu, T. Bhattacharya, S. Chandrasekharan, and R. Gupta, Phases of 2D massless QCD with qubit regularization, Phys. Rev. D 111, 094511 (2025), arXiv:2312.17734 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    T. V. Zache, D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, and P. Zoller, Quan- tum and Classical Spin-Network Algorithms for q- Deformed Kogut-Susskind Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 171902 (2023), arXiv:2304.02527 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    A. N. Ciavarella, Quantum simulation of lattice QCD with improved Hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. D 108, 094513 (2023), arXiv:2307.05593 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    D’Andrea, C

    I. D’Andrea, C. W. Bauer, D. M. Grabowska, and M. Freytsis, New basis for Hamiltonian SU(2) simulations, Phys. Rev. D 109, 074501 (2024), arXiv:2307.11829 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    A. N. Ciavarella and C. W. Bauer, Quantum Simulation of SU(3) Lattice Yang-Mills Theory at Leading Order in Large-Nc Expansion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 111901 (2024), arXiv:2402.10265 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    D. M. Grabowska, C. F. Kane, and C. W. Bauer, A Fully Gauge-Fixed SU(2) Hamiltonian for Quantum Simula- tions, (2024), arXiv:2409.10610 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    A. H. Z. Kavaki and R. Lewis, From square plaquettes to triamond lattices for SU(2) gauge theory, Commun. Phys. 7, 208 (2024), arXiv:2401.14570 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    J. C. Halimeh, M. Hanada, S. Matsuura, F. Nori, E. Rinaldi, and A. Sch¨ afer, A universal framework for the quantum simulation of Yang-Mills theory, (2024), arXiv:2411.13161 [quant-ph]

    2024

  34. [42]

    A. N. Ciavarella, I. M. Burbano, and C. W. Bauer, Effi- cient Truncations of SU( Nc) Lattice Gauge Theory for Quantum Simulation, (2025), arXiv:2503.11888 [hep- lat]

    2025

  35. [43]

    Balaji, C

    P. Balaji, C. Conefrey-Shinozaki, P. Draper, J. K. El- haderi, D. Gupta, L. Hidalgo, A. Lytle, and E. Ri- naldi, Quantum Circuits for SU(3) Lattice Gauge The- ory, (2025), arXiv:2503.08866 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    H.-H. Lu, Z. Hu, M. S. Alshaykh, A. J. Moore, Y. Wang, P. Imany, A. M. Weiner, and S. Kais, Quantum Phase Estimation with Time-Frequency Qudits in a Single Photon, Adv. Quantum Technol. 3, 1900074 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Cervera-Lierta, M

    A. Cervera-Lierta, M. Krenn, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and A. Galda, Experimental high-dimensional Greenberger- Horne-Zeilinger entanglement with superconducting transmon qutrits, Phys. Rev. Applied 17, 024062 (2022), arXiv:2104.05627 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Ringbauer, M

    M. Ringbauer, M. Meth, L. Postler, R. Stricker, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, and T. Monz, A universal qu- dit quantum processor with trapped ions, Nature Phys. 18, 1053 (2022), arXiv:2109.06903 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Morvan, V

    A. Morvan, V. V. Ramasesh, M. S. Blok, J. M. Kreike- baum, K. O’Brien, L. Chen, B. K. Mitchell, R. K. Naik, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, Qutrit Randomized Benchmarking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 210504 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    P. Hrmo, B. Wilhelm, L. Gerster, M. W. van Mourik, M. Huber, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, T. Monz, and M. Ringbauer, Native qudit entanglement in a trapped ion quantum processor, Nature Commun. 14, 2242 (2023), arXiv:2206.04104 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Goss et al

    N. Goss et al. , High-fidelity qutrit entangling gates for superconducting circuits, Nature Commun. 13, 7481 (2022), [Erratum: Nature Commun. 14, 4256 (2023)], arXiv:2206.07216 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    L. B. Nguyen, N. Goss, K. Siva, Y. Kim, E. Younis, B. Qing, A. Hashim, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, Em- powering a qudit-based quantum processor by travers- ing the dual bosonic ladder, Nature Commun. 15, 7117 (2024), arXiv:2312.17741 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    L. M. Seifert, Z. Li, T. Roy, D. I. Schuster, F. T. Chong, and J. M. Baker, Exploring ququart computation on a transmon using optimal control, Phys. Rev. A 108, 062609 (2023), arXiv:2304.11159 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    P. J. Low, B. White, and C. Senko, Control and Readout of a 13-level Trapped Ion Qudit, (2023), arXiv:2306.03340 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Senko, P

    C. Senko, P. Richerme, J. Smith, A. Lee, I. Cohen, A. Retzker, and C. Monroe, Realization of a Quan- tum Integer-Spin Chain with Controllable Interactions, Phys. Rev. X 5, 021026 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    M. S. Blok, V. V. Ramasesh, T. Schuster, K. O’Brien, J. M. Kreikebaum, D. Dahlen, A. Morvan, B. Yoshida, N. Y. Yao, and I. Siddiqi, Quantum Information Scram- bling on a Superconducting Qutrit Processor, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021010 (2021), arXiv:2003.03307 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    D. M. Kurkcuoglu, M. S. Alam, J. A. Job, A. C. Y. Li, A. Macridin, G. N. Perdue, and S. Providence, Quan- tum simulation of ϕ4 theories in qudit systems, (2021), arXiv:2108.13357 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, T

    D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, T. V. Zache, J. Carrasco, B. Kraus, and P. Zoller, Hardware Efficient Quantum Simulation of Non-Abelian Gauge Theories with Qudits on Rydberg Platforms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 160501 (2022), arXiv:2203.15541 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    T. V. Zache, D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, and P. Zoller, Fermion-qudit quantum processors for simulating lattice gauge theories with matter, Quantum 7, 1140 (2023), arXiv:2303.08683 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    P. P. Popov, M. Meth, M. Lewenstein, P. Hauke, M. Ringbauer, E. Zohar, and V. Kasper, Variational quantum simulation of U(1) lattice gauge theories with qudit systems, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013202 (2024), arXiv:2307.15173 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    J. C. Halimeh, M. Aidelsburger, F. Grusdt, P. Hauke, and B. Yang, Cold-atom quantum simulators of gauge theories, Nature Phys. 21, 25 (2025), arXiv:2310.12201 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2025 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Vezvaee, N

    A. Vezvaee, N. Earnest-Noble, and K. Najafi, Quantum simulation of Fermi-Hubbard model based on transmon qudit interaction, (2024), arXiv:2402.01243 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    M. Illa, C. E. P. Robin, and M. J. Savage, Quantum sim- ulations of SO(5) many-fermion systems using qudits, Phys. Rev. C 108, 064306 (2023), arXiv:2305.11941 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Meth et al

    M. Meth et al. , Simulating two-dimensional lattice gauge theories on a qudit quantum computer, Nature Phys. 21, 570 (2025), arXiv:2310.12110 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Turro, I

    F. Turro, I. A. Chernyshev, R. Bhaskar, and M. Illa, Qutrit and qubit circuits for three-flavor collective neu- trino oscillations, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043038 (2025), arXiv:2407.13914 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  56. [64]

    M. Illa, C. E. P. Robin, and M. J. Savage, Qu8its for quantum simulations of lattice quantum chromodynam- ics, Phys. Rev. D 110, 014507 (2024), arXiv:2403.14537 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Calaj` o, G

    G. Calaj` o, G. Magnifico, C. Edmunds, M. Ringbauer, S. Montangero, and P. Silvi, Digital Quantum Sim- ulation of a (1+1)D SU(2) Lattice Gauge Theory 21 with Ion Qudits, PRX Quantum 5, 040309 (2024), arXiv:2402.07987 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    D. M. K¨ urk¸ c¨ uoglu, H. Lamm, and A. Maestri, Qu- dit Gate Decomposition Dependence for Lattice Gauge Theories, (2024), arXiv:2410.16414 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Gottesman, Fault tolerant quantum computation with higher dimensional systems, Chaos Solitons Frac- tals 10, 1749 (1999), arXiv:quant-ph/9802007

    D. Gottesman, Fault tolerant quantum computation with higher dimensional systems, Chaos Solitons Frac- tals 10, 1749 (1999), arXiv:quant-ph/9802007

    1999 arXiv

  60. [68]

    E. T. Campbell, Enhanced Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing in d-Level Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 230501 (2014)

    2014

  61. [69]

    Inada, W

    T. Inada, W. Jang, Y. Iiyama, K. Terashi, R. Sawada, J. Tanaka, and S. Asai, Measurement-Free Ultrafast Quantum Error Correction by Using Multi-Controlled Gates in Higher-Dimensional State Space, (2021), arXiv:2109.00086 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Cowtan, Qudit lattice surgery, (2022), arXiv:2204.13228 [quant-ph]

    A. Cowtan, Qudit lattice surgery, (2022), arXiv:2204.13228 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  63. [71]

    B. L. Brock, S. Singh, A. Eickbusch, V. V. Sivak, A. Z. Ding, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and M. H. Devoret, Quantum error correction of qudits beyond break-even, Nature 641, 612 (2025), arXiv:2409.15065 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Muthukrishnan and C

    A. Muthukrishnan and C. R. Stroud, Multivalued logic gates for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 62, 052309 (2000)

    2000

  65. [73]

    A. S. Nikolaeva, E. O. Kiktenko, and A. K. Fedorov, Efficient realization of quantum algorithms with qudits, EPJ Quant. Technol. 11, 43 (2024), arXiv:2111.04384 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    B. P. Lanyon, M. Barbieri, M. P. Almeida, T. Jen- newein, T. C. Ralph, K. J. Resch, G. J. Pryde, J. L. O’brien, A. Gilchrist, and A. G. White, Simplifying quantum logic using higher-dimensional Hilbert spaces, Nature Physics 5, 134 (2009)

    2009

  67. [75]

    Li, Y.-J

    W.-D. Li, Y.-J. Gu, K. Liu, Y.-H. Lee, and Y.-Z. Zhang, Efficient universal quantum computation with auxiliary Hilbert space, Phys. Rev. A 88, 034303 (2013)

    2013

  68. [76]

    Liu and H.-R

    W.-Q. Liu and H.-R. Wei, Optimal synthesis of the Fred- kin gate in a multilevel system, New Journal of Physics 22, 063026 (2020)

    2020

  69. [77]

    J. M. Baker, C. Duckering, P. Gokhale, N. C. Brown, K. R. Brown, and F. T. Chong, Improved Quantum Cir- cuits via Intermediate Qutrits, ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing 1, 10.1145/3406309 (2020)

    2020 doi

  70. [78]

    Litteken, J

    A. Litteken, J. M. Baker, and F. T. Chong, Commu- nication Trade Offs in Intermediate Qudit Circuits, in 2022 IEEE 52nd International Symposium on Multiple- Valued Logic (ISMVL) (2022) pp. 43–49

    2022

  71. [79]

    A. Saha, R. Majumdar, D. Saha, A. Chakrabarti, and S. Sur-Kolay, Asymptotically improved circuit for a d- ary Grover’s algorithm with advanced decomposition of the n-qudit Toffoli gate, Phys. Rev. A 105, 062453 (2022), arXiv:2012.04447 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Majumdar, A

    R. Majumdar, A. Saha, A. Chakrabarti, and S. Sur- Kolay, Intermediate qutrit-assisted Toffoli gate decom- position with quantum error correction, Quant. Inf. Proc. 23, 42 (2024)

    2024

  73. [81]

    Lysaght, T

    L. Lysaght, T. Goubault, P. Sinnott, S. Mansfield, and P.-E. Emeriau, Quantum circuit compression using qubit logic on qudits, (2024), arXiv:2411.03878 [quant- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Y. Wang, Z. Hu, B. C. Sanders, and S. Kais, Qudits and High-Dimensional Quantum Computing, Frontiers in Physics 8, 10.3389/fphy.2020.589504 (2020)

    2020

  75. [83]

    L. E. Fischer, D. Miller, F. Tacchino, P. K. Barkoutsos, D. J. Egger, and I. Tavernelli, Ancilla-free implementa- tion of generalized measurements for qubits embedded in a qudit space, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033027 (2022)

    2022

  76. [84]

    Deller, S

    Y. Deller, S. Schmitt, M. Lewenstein, S. Lenk, M. Fed- erer, F. Jendrzejewski, P. Hauke, and V. Kasper, Quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm for qudit sys- tems, Phys. Rev. A 107, 062410 (2023)

    2023

  77. [85]

    Bottrill, M

    G. Bottrill, M. Pandey, and O. Di Matteo, Explor- ing the Potential of Qutrits for Quantum Optimiza- tion of Graph Coloring, in 2023 International Confer- ence on Quantum Computing and Engineering (2023) arXiv:2308.08050 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Zahidy et al

    M. Zahidy et al. , Practical high-dimensional quantum key distribution protocol over deployed multicore fiber, Nature Commun. 15, 1651 (2024)

    2024

  79. [87]

    C. Popp, T. C. Sutter, and B. C. Hiesmayr, A Novel Stabilizer-based Entanglement Distillation Protocol for Qudits, (2024), arXiv:2408.02383 [quant-ph]

    2024

  80. [88]

    D. L. Zhou, B. Zeng, Z. Xu, and C. P. Sun, Quantum computation based on d-level cluster state, Phys. Rev. A 68, 062303 (2003)

    2003

  81. [89]

    S. S. Bullock, D. P. O’Leary, and G. K. Brennen, Asymptotically Optimal Quantum Circuits for d-Level Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 230502 (2005)

    2005

  82. [90]

    G. K. Brennen, S. S. Bullock, and D. P. O’Leary, Ef- ficient Circuits for Exact-Universal Computations with Qudits, (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0509161 [quant-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  83. [91]

    F. S. Khan and M. Perkowski, Synthesis of multi-qudit hybrid and d-valued quantum logic circuits by decom- position, Theoretical Computer Science 367, 336–346 (2006)

    2006

  84. [92]

    Nakajima, Y

    Y. Nakajima, Y. Kawano, H. Sekigawa, M. Nakanishi, S. Yamashita, and Y. Nakashima, Synthesis of quantum circuits for d-level systems by using cosine-sine decom- position, Quantum Information & Computation 9, 423 (2009)

    2009

  85. [93]

    Di and H.-R

    Y.-M. Di and H.-R. Wei, Synthesis of multivalued quan- tum logic circuits by elementary gates, Phys. Rev. A87, 012325 (2013)

    2013

  86. [94]

    Luo, X.-B

    M.-X. Luo, X.-B. Chen, Y.-X. Yang, and X. Wang, Ge- ometry of Quantum Computation with Qudits, Scien- tific Reports 4, 4044 (2014)

    2014

  87. [95]

    Luo and X

    M. Luo and X. Wang, Universal quantum computation with qudits, Science China Physics, Mechanics & As- tronomy 57, 1712 (2014)

    2014

  88. [96]

    Di and H.-R

    Y.-M. Di and H.-R. Wei, Optimal synthesis of multival- ued quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. A 92, 062317 (2015)

    2015

  89. [97]

    W. Zi, Q. Li, and X. Sun, Optimal Synthesis of Multi- Controlled Qudit Gates, (2023), arXiv:2303.12979 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Jiang, W.-Q

    G.-L. Jiang, W.-Q. Liu, and H.-R. Wei, Optimal syn- thesis of general multi-qutrit quantum computation, (2023), arXiv:2310.11996 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  91. [99]

    K. Mato, S. Hillmich, and R. Wille, Mixed-dimensional qudit state preparation using edge-weighted decision di- agrams, in Proceedings of the 61st ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (2024) pp. 1–6

    2024

  92. [100]

    S. Yang, L. Xu, G. Tian, and X. Sun, Quantum cir- cuit synthesis with qudit phase gadget method, (2025), arXiv:2504.12710 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Prakash, A

    S. Prakash, A. Jain, B. Kapur, and S. Seth, Normal form for single-qutrit Clifford+ T operators and synthesis of single-qutrit gates, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032304 (2018). 22

    2018

  94. [102]

    Yeh and J

    L. Yeh and J. van de Wetering, Constructing All Qutrit Controlled Clifford+T gates in Clifford+T, inReversible Computation: 14th International Conference, RC 2022, Urbino, Italy, July 5–6, 2022, Proceedings (Springer- Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2022) p. 28–50

    2022

  95. [103]

    van de Wetering and L

    J. van de Wetering and L. Yeh, Building Qutrit Diago- nal Gates from Phase Gadgets, EPTCS 394, 46 (2023), arXiv:2204.13681 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  96. [104]

    A. R. Kalra, M. Saikia, D. Valluri, S. Winnick, and J. Yard, Multi-qutrit exact synthesis, (2024), arXiv:2405.08147 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  97. [105]

    A. N. Glaudell, N. J. Ross, J. van de Weter- ing, and L. Yeh, Exact Synthesis of Multiqutrit Clifford-Cyclotomic Circuits, EPTCS 406, 44 (2024), arXiv:2405.08136 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  98. [106]

    A. R. Kalra, M. Mosca, and D. Valluri, Synthesis and Arithmetic of Single Qutrit Circuits, Quantum 9, 1647 (2025), arXiv:2311.08696 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  99. [107]

    E. J. Gustafson, H. Lamm, D. Liu, E. M. Murairi, and S. Zhu, Synthesis of Single Qutrit Circuits from Clif- ford+R, (2025), arXiv:2503.20203 [quant-ph]

    2025

  100. [108]

    A Rahman, R

    S. A Rahman, R. Lewis, E. Mendicelli, and S. Pow- ell, SU(2) lattice gauge theory on a quantum annealer, Phys. Rev. D 104, 034501 (2021)

    2021

  101. [109]

    https://github.com/QSAR-UBC/QuditOpsViaLGT

  102. [110]

    Marinari, The APE Computer and Lattice Gauge Theories, in Lattice Gauge Theory: A Challenge in Large-Scale Computing , edited by B

    E. Marinari, The APE Computer and Lattice Gauge Theories, in Lattice Gauge Theory: A Challenge in Large-Scale Computing , edited by B. Bunk, K. H. M¨ utter, and K. Schilling (Springer US, Boston, MA,

  103. [111]

    Boyle, D

    P. Boyle, D. Chen, N. Christ, M. Clark, S. Cohen, Z. Dong, A. Gara, B. Joo, C. Jung, L. Levkova, X. Liao, G. Liu, R. Mawhinney, S. Ohta, K. Petrov, T. Wettig, A. Yamaguchi, and C. Cristian, QCDOC: A 10 Teraflops Computer for Tightly-Coupled Calculations, in SC ’04: Proceedings...

    2004

  104. [112]

    N. H. Christ, QCDSP and QCDOC Computers, in En- cyclopedia of Parallel Computing , edited by D. Padua (Springer US, Boston, MA, 2011) pp. 1668–1677

    2011

  105. [113]

    Ciavarella, N

    A. Ciavarella, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Some Con- ceptual Aspects of Operator Design for Quantum Sim- ulations of Non-Abelian Lattice Gauge Theories (2022) arXiv:2203.11988 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  106. [115]

    M¨ ott¨ onen, J

    M. M¨ ott¨ onen, J. J. Vartiainen, V. Bergholm, and M. M. Salomaa, Transformation of quantum states using uni- formly controlled rotations, Quantum Info. Comput. 5, 467–473 (2005)

    2005

  107. [116]

    Klco and M

    N. Klco and M. J. Savage, Minimally entangled state preparation of localized wave functions on quantum computers, Physical Review A 102, 10.1103/phys- reva.102.012612 (2020)

    2020 doi

  108. [117]

    De Morgan, Formal logic: or, the calculus of infer- ence, necessary and probable (Taylor and Walton, 1847)

    A. De Morgan, Formal logic: or, the calculus of infer- ence, necessary and probable (Taylor and Walton, 1847)

  109. [118]

    Bergholm et al

    V. Bergholm et al. , PennyLane: Automatic differentia- tion of hybrid quantum-classical computations (2022), arXiv:1811.04968 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  110. [119]

    https://github.com/QSAR- UBC/pennylane more qutrit ops

  111. [120]

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

    2019 arXiv

  112. [121]

    M. C. Tran, Y. Su, D. Carney, and J. M. Taylor, Faster Digital Quantum Simulation by Symmetry Protection, PRX Quantum 2, 010323 (2021), arXiv:2006.16248 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  113. [122]

    H. Lamm, S. Lawrence, and Y. Yamauchi (NuQS), Sup- pressing Coherent Gauge Drift in Quantum Simulations, (2020), arXiv:2005.12688 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  114. [123]

    N. H. Nguyen, M. C. Tran, Y. Zhu, A. M. Green, C. H. Alderete, Z. Davoudi, and N. M. Linke, Digital Quan- tum Simulation of the Schwinger Model and Symmetry Protection with Trapped Ions, PRX Quantum3, 020324 (2022), arXiv:2112.14262 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  115. [124]

    Ballini, J

    E. Ballini, J. Mildenberger, M. M. Wauters, and P. Hauke, Symmetry verification for noisy quantum sim- ulations of non-Abelian lattice gauge theories, (2024), arXiv:2412.07844 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  116. [125]

    Ball and T

    C. Ball and T. D. Cohen, Zeno effect suppression of gauge drift in quantum simulations, Phys. Rev. A 110, 022417 (2024), arXiv:2405.09462 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  117. [126]

    M. M. Wauters, E. Ballini, A. Biella, and P. Hauke, Symmetry-protection Zeno phase transition in moni- tored lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. B 111, 094315 (2025), arXiv:2405.18504 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  118. [127]

    Carena, H

    M. Carena, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, and W. Liu, Quantum error thresholds for gauge-redundant digitizations of lat- tice field theories, Phys. Rev. D 110, 054516 (2024), arXiv:2402.16780 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  119. [128]

    Bravyi, J

    S. Bravyi, J. M. Gambetta, A. Mezzacapo, and K. Temme, Tapering off qubits to simulate fermionic Hamiltonians, (2017), arXiv:1701.08213 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  120. [129]

    Di Matteo, A

    O. Di Matteo, A. McCoy, P. Gysbers, T. Miyagi, R. M. Woloshyn, and P. Navr´ atil, Improving Hamiltonian en- codings with the Gray code, Phys. Rev. A 103, 042405 (2021), arXiv:2008.05012 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.