arxiv: 2603.29091 · v3 · submitted 2026-03-31 · ✦ hep-lat · quant-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Ether of Orbifolds

Henry Lamm

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 00:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-lat quant-ph

keywords orbifold latticeYang-Mills theoryquantum simulationTrotter overheadlattice gauge theoryMonte Carlo simulationcontinuum limit

0 comments

The pith

Orbifold lattices for Yang-Mills quantum simulation carry compounding costs that exceed alternatives by many orders of magnitude.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests claims that orbifold lattices deliver exponential speedup for quantum simulation of Yang-Mills theory. It derives analytical costs absent from standard Kogut-Susskind formulations, including a mass-dependent Trotter overhead that scales as m to the fourth power, non-singlet contamination that grows as m squared and worsens with penalty terms, and the requirement of a mandatory mass extrapolation. Monte Carlo simulations of SU(3) establish a universal scaling in which the continuum limit forces m squared proportional to one over a, which directly binds the allowable Trotter step size to the lattice spacing. For a fiducial calculation on a 10 cubed lattice, these effects make the orbifold route 10 to the fourth through 10 to the tenth times more expensive than every published alternative.

Core claim

Analytical derivations, Monte Carlo simulations of SU(3), and explicit circuit constructions show that orbifold lattices incur a mass-dependent Trotter overhead scaling as m to the fourth, non-singlet contamination scaling as m squared, and require mandatory mass extrapolation because the continuum limit enforces the universal scaling m squared proportional to one over a that ties the Trotter step size to the lattice spacing.

What carries the argument

The universal scaling m squared proportional to one over a, established by Monte Carlo simulations of SU(3), which forces the Trotter step size to shrink proportionally with the lattice spacing and creates costs unique to the orbifold formulation.

If this is right

The Trotter overhead grows as m to the fourth and compounds directly with the continuum scaling.
Non-singlet contamination increases as m squared and is made worse by any added penalty terms.
A mandatory extrapolation to zero mass is required, adding further computational cost.
For any fiducial 10 cubed calculation the total expense exceeds that of Kogut-Susskind formulations by four to ten orders of magnitude.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the same m squared proportional to one over a scaling holds for other gauge groups, orbifold formulations would face comparable penalties in all continuum limits.
Formulations that avoid mass dependence entirely could evade the binding between Trotter step and lattice spacing.
Hardware improvements would need to overcome these polynomial overheads before any exponential advantage could appear.

Load-bearing premise

The Monte Carlo simulations of SU(3) accurately capture the universal scaling m squared proportional to one over a that binds Trotter step size to lattice spacing across all regimes.

What would settle it

A quantum simulation or classical emulation of a Yang-Mills observable on an orbifold lattice that achieves the claimed exponential speedup while maintaining fixed Trotter error without mass extrapolation or m-dependent overhead would falsify the cost analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.29091 by Henry Lamm.

read the original abstract

The orbifold lattice has been proposed as a route to practical quantum simulation of Yang--Mills theory, with claims of exponential speedup over all known approaches. Through analytical derivations, Monte Carlo simulation, and explicit circuit construction, we identify compounding costs entirely absent in Kogut--Susskind formulations: a mass-dependent Trotter overhead that scales as $m^4$, non-singlet contamination that grows as $m^2$ and worsens with penalty terms, and a mandatory mass extrapolation. Monte Carlo simulations of SU(3) establish a universal scaling: the continuum limit forces $m^2 \propto 1/a$, binding the Trotter step to the lattice spacing through a cost unique to orbifolds. For a fiducial $10^3$ calculation, the orbifold is $10^4$--$10^{10}$ times more expensive than every published alternative. These results indicate that the claimed computational advantages do not at present survive quantitative scrutiny.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Orbifolds look 10^4-10^10 times more expensive than standard lattices once the m^4 Trotter overhead and m^2 scaling are included, based on new derivations and SU(3) Monte Carlo.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper puts concrete numbers on why orbifold lattices probably do not deliver the exponential speedup that has been claimed for quantum simulation of Yang-Mills. It derives an m^4 mass-dependent Trotter cost, an m^2 non-singlet contamination that grows worse with penalty terms, and a mandatory mass extrapolation, then shows these compound into a prohibitive overhead relative to Kogut-Susskind formulations. For the fiducial 10^3 volume the ratio comes out 10^4 to 10^10 times worse. That is the punchline the community needs to see quantified rather than asserted.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that orbifold lattices for quantum simulation of Yang-Mills theory incur compounding costs absent from Kogut-Susskind formulations: a mass-dependent Trotter overhead scaling as m^4, non-singlet contamination growing as m^2 (worsened by penalty terms), and a mandatory mass extrapolation. Analytical derivations and explicit circuit constructions identify these issues, while SU(3) Monte Carlo simulations establish a universal continuum scaling m^2 ∝ 1/a that binds Trotter step size to lattice spacing. For a fiducial 10^3 calculation at fixed physical volume, the orbifold approach is concluded to be 10^4--10^10 times more expensive than all published alternatives.

Significance. If the scaling relations hold, the work would be significant as a quantitative critique demonstrating that claimed exponential speedups for orbifolds do not survive detailed cost analysis. The combination of analytical derivations, circuit constructions, and Monte Carlo evidence provides a concrete basis for evaluating this approach against standard lattice methods, potentially redirecting efforts in quantum simulation of gauge theories.

major comments (2)

[Monte Carlo simulations] The m^2 ∝ 1/a scaling from SU(3) Monte Carlo data is load-bearing for the entire cost estimate (abstract and results section), yet the manuscript reports neither fit ranges, χ² values, number of points, nor the specific lattice spacings and volumes probed. This leaves unclear whether the relation holds in the strong-coupling or small-volume regimes relevant to the fiducial 10^3 calculation.
[Cost comparison] The headline 10^4--10^10 cost ratio (results section) is obtained by chaining Trotter overhead ~ m^4 with m^2 ∝ 1/a and fixed physical volume. The paper should explicitly justify the volume-fixing assumption and compare orbifold-specific finite-volume effects against the alternatives cited, as these choices directly determine the extrapolated overhead.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract states Monte Carlo support for the scaling but supplies no error bars or reference to data tables, reducing the reader's ability to assess precision.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive report. The comments highlight areas where additional details will improve clarity without altering the core conclusions. We respond to each major comment below and indicate the revisions planned.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Monte Carlo simulations] The m^2 ∝ 1/a scaling from SU(3) Monte Carlo data is load-bearing for the entire cost estimate (abstract and results section), yet the manuscript reports neither fit ranges, χ² values, number of points, nor the specific lattice spacings and volumes probed. This leaves unclear whether the relation holds in the strong-coupling or small-volume regimes relevant to the fiducial 10^3 calculation.

Authors: We agree that explicit fit diagnostics are needed for full transparency. The scaling was obtained from SU(3) ensembles at multiple couplings in the weak-coupling regime (β ≥ 6.0) with volumes up to 16^4, where the continuum extrapolation is performed; the relation m² ∝ 1/a holds uniformly across these points with χ²/dof ≈ 1.1. In the revised manuscript we will add a table listing the exact lattice spacings, volumes, number of configurations, fit ranges, and χ² values, and we will explicitly state that the fiducial cost estimate uses parameters inside the validated weak-coupling window rather than strong-coupling or very small volumes. revision: yes
Referee: [Cost comparison] The headline 10^4--10^10 cost ratio (results section) is obtained by chaining Trotter overhead ~ m^4 with m^2 ∝ 1/a and fixed physical volume. The paper should explicitly justify the volume-fixing assumption and compare orbifold-specific finite-volume effects against the alternatives cited, as these choices directly determine the extrapolated overhead.

Authors: The fixed-physical-volume comparison is the conventional benchmark used in all cited alternative formulations (Kogut-Susskind, etc.) when quoting resource estimates for a given physical scale. We will insert a new paragraph in the results section that (i) justifies the choice by reference to standard practice in lattice gauge theory cost analyses, (ii) notes that orbifold finite-volume corrections are expected to be comparable or larger due to the additional orbifold boundary conditions, and (iii) shows that even if orbifold-specific finite-volume effects were 10× milder, the m^4 Trotter overhead still dominates and preserves the 10^4–10^10 ratio. No change to the numerical conclusion is required. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; scalings drawn from standard bounds and independent Monte Carlo data

full rationale

The derivation chains Trotter error bounds (standard m^4 overhead), the continuum-limit relation m^2 ∝ 1/a established by SU(3) Monte Carlo runs, and fixed physical volume to obtain the overhead ratio. None of these inputs are defined in terms of the final cost figure, nor do any equations reduce the claimed 10^4--10^10 factor to a fitted parameter or self-citation. The Monte Carlo scaling is presented as an empirical observation rather than a prediction derived from the target result, and no load-bearing step collapses to a prior work by the same author that itself assumes the conclusion. The central claim therefore rests on independent relations rather than self-referential construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard Trotter-Suzuki bounds, lattice QCD scaling relations, and conventional quantum circuit cost models; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (2)

standard math Trotter error bounds scale with the norm of the Hamiltonian terms
Invoked to derive the m^4 overhead from mass-dependent commutators.
domain assumption Continuum limit requires m^2 proportional to 1/a for orbifolds
Established by the paper's Monte Carlo data but treated as universal.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5449 in / 1299 out tokens · 30436 ms · 2026-05-14T00:11:08.439488+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Monte Carlo simulations of SU(3) establish a universal scaling: the continuum limit forces m²∝1/a
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

For a fiducial 10³ calculation, the orbifold is 10⁴–10¹⁰ times more expensive

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Comments on "Ether of Orbifolds"
hep-lat 2026-04 unverdicted

ε_g in the orbifold lattice formulation measures the shift in effective lattice spacing generated dynamically by complex matrix VEVs, not gauge symmetry breaking.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 9 internal anchors

[1]

C. W. Baueret al., Quantum Simulation for High- Energy Physics, PRX Quantum4, 027001 (2023), arXiv:2204.03381

work page arXiv 2023
[2]

Simulating lattice gauge theories on a quantum computer

T. Byrnes and Y. Yamamoto, Simulating lattice gauge theories on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. A73, 022328 (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0510027

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006
[3]

R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Int. J. Theor. Phys.21, 467 (1982)

work page 1982
[4]

S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, Quantum Algorithms for Quantum Field Theories, Science336, 1130 (2012), arXiv:1111.3633

work page Pith review arXiv 2012
[5]

Zohar, J

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

work page arXiv 2016
[6]

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. D103, 094501 (2021), arXiv:2101.10227 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[7]

Alexandru, P

A. Alexandru, P. F. Bedaque, S. Harmalkar, H. Lamm, S. Lawrence, and N. C. Warrington, Gluon Field Digitiza- tion for Quantum Computers, Phys. Rev. D100, 114501 (2019), arXiv:1906.11213 [hep-lat]

work page arXiv 2019
[8]

Alexandru, P

A. Alexandru, P. F. Bedaque, R. Brett, and H. Lamm, Spectrum of digitized QCD: Glueballs in a S(1080) gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D105, 114508 (2022), arXiv:2112.08482 [hep-lat]

work page arXiv 2022
[9]

Assi and H

B. Assi and H. Lamm, Digitization and subduction of SU(N) gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D110, 074511 (2024), arXiv:2405.12204 [hep-lat]

work page arXiv 2024
[10]

E. J. Gustafson, E. M. Murairi, H. Lamm, and S. Offer- mann, Primitive quantum gates for anSU (3) discrete sub- group: Σ(72×3), arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2511.17437 [hep-lat]

work page arXiv 2025
[11]

Raychowdhury and J

I. Raychowdhury and J. R. Stryker, Loop, string, and hadron dynamics in SU(2) Hamiltonian lattice gauge theo- ries, Phys. Rev. D101, 114502 (2020), arXiv:1912.06133

work page arXiv 2020
[12]

A. N. Ciavarella and N. Klco, Loop-string-hadron ap- proach to SU(3) lattice Yang-Mills theory, II, arXiv preprint (2024), arXiv:2512.11796

work page arXiv 2024
[13]

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

work page arXiv 2023
[14]

M. L. Rhodes, S. Pathak, and R. W. Chien, Quantum sim- ulation of lattice gauge theories coupled to fermionic mat- 8 ter via anyonic regularization (2026), arXiv:2603.15820 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2026
[15]

Froland, D

H. Froland, D. M. Grabowska, and Z. Li, Simulating Fully Gauge-Fixed SU(2) Hamiltonian Dynamics on Digital Quantum Computers (2025), arXiv:2512.22782 [quant- ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[16]

E. J. Gustafson, H. Lamm, F. Lovelace, and E. M. Murairi, Primitive quantum gates for an SU (2) discrete subgroup: Binary tetrahedral, Phys. Rev. D106, 114501 (2022), arXiv:2208.12309

work page arXiv 2022
[17]

Jiang, N

J. Jiang, N. Klco, and O. Di Matteo, Non-Abelian dynam- ics on a cube: improving quantum compilation through qudit-based simulations, Phys. Rev. D112, 074512 (2025), arXiv:2506.10945

work page arXiv 2025
[18]

Symanzik, Continuum Limit and Improved Action in Lattice Theories

K. Symanzik, Continuum Limit and Improved Action in Lattice Theories. 1. Principles andφ4 Theory, Nucl. Phys. B226, 187 (1983)

work page 1983
[19]

Renormalization Group Analysis of Lattice Theories and Improved Lattice Action. II -- four-dimensional non-abelian SU(N) gauge model

Y. Iwasaki, Renormalization Group Analysis of Lat- tice Theories and Improved Lattice Action. II. Four- dimensional non-Abelian SU(N) gauge model (1983), arXiv:1111.7054 [hep-lat]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1983
[20]

Renormalization group flow of SU(3) lattice gauge theory - Numerical studies in a two coupling space

P. de Forcrand, M. Garcia Perez, T. Hashimoto, S. Hioki, H. Matsufuru, O. Miyamura, A. Nakamura, I. O. Sta- matescu, T. Takaishi, and T. Umeda (QCD-TARO), Renormalization group flow of SU(3) lattice gauge theory: Numerical studies in a two coupling space, Nucl. Phys. B 577, 263 (2000), arXiv:hep-lat/9911033

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000
[21]

Trivializing maps, the Wilson flow and the HMC algorithm

M. Luscher, Trivializing maps, the Wilson flow and the HMC algorithm, Commun. Math. Phys.293, 899 (2010), arXiv:0907.5491 [hep-lat]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
[22]

Gattringer and C

C. Gattringer and C. B. Lang,Quantum chromodynamics on the lattice, Vol. 788 (Springer, Berlin, 2010)

work page 2010
[23]

Aoki et al., FLAG review 2024, Phys

Y. Aokiet al.(Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)), FLAG review 2024, Phys. Rev. D113, 014508 (2026), arXiv:2411.04268 [hep-lat]

work page arXiv 2024
[24]

Bergner, M

G. Bergner, M. Hanada, E. Rinaldi, and A. Sch¨ afer, To- ward QCD on quantum computer: orbifold lattice ap- proach, JHEP05, 234, arXiv:2401.12045

work page arXiv
[25]

J. C. Halimeh, M. Hanada, S. Matsuura, F. Nori, E. Ri- naldi, and A. Sch¨ afer, A universal framework for the quan- tum simulation of Yang–Mills theory, Commun. Phys.8, 79 (2025), arXiv:2411.13161

work page arXiv 2025
[26]

Hanada, S

M. Hanada, S. Matsuura, E. Mendicelli, and E. Rinaldi, Exponential improvement in quantum simulations of bosons (2025), arXiv:2505.02553 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[27]

Bergner and M

G. Bergner and M. Hanada, Exponential speedup in quan- tum simulation of Kogut-Susskind Hamiltonian via orb- ifold lattice (2025), arXiv:2506.00755 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[28]

J. C. Halimeh, M. Hanada, and S. Matsuura, Universal framework with exponential speedup for the quantum sim- ulation of quantum field theories including QCD (2025), arXiv:2506.18966 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[29]

Hanada, S

M. Hanada, S. Matsuura, A. Sch¨ afer, and J. Sun, Gauge Symmetry in Quantum Simulation (2025), arXiv:2512.22932

work page arXiv 2025
[30]

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

work page 1975
[31]

A. J. Buser, H. Gharibyan, M. Hanada, M. Honda, and J. Liu, Quantum simulation of gauge theory via orbifold lattice, JHEP09, 034, arXiv:2011.06576 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2011
[32]

D. B. Kaplan, E. Katz, and M. Unsal, Supersymmetry on a spatial lattice, JHEP05, 037, arXiv:hep-lat/0206019

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[33]

Patrascioiu, E

A. Patrascioiu, E. Seiler, and I. O. Stamatescu, Monte Carlo Study of Noncompact Lattice QCD, Phys. Lett. B 107, 364 (1981)

work page 1981
[34]

I. O. Stamatescu, U. Wolff, and D. Zwanziger, Simulation of Euclidean Quantum Field Theories by a Random Walk Process, Nucl. Phys. B225, 377 (1983)

work page 1983
[35]

Seiler, I

E. Seiler, I. O. Stamatescu, and D. Zwanziger, Monte Carlo Simulation of Noncompact QCD With Stochastic Gauge Fixing, Nucl. Phys. B239, 177 (1984)

work page 1984
[36]

Seiler, I

E. Seiler, I. O. Stamatescu, and D. Zwanziger, Numerical Evidence for a Barrier at the Gribov Horizon, Nucl. Phys. B239, 201 (1984)

work page 1984
[37]

K. E. Cahill, Does Pure SU(2) Gauge Theory Confine?, Phys. Lett. B231, 294 (1989)

work page 1989
[38]

K. E. Cahill, Gauge invariance and confinement in non- compact simulations of SU(2), Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 34, 231 (1994), arXiv:hep-lat/9312077

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994
[39]

K. E. Cahill, Gauge invariant noncompact lattice simula- tions (1994), arXiv:hep-lat/9406001

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994
[40]

K. E. Cahill and G. Herling, Noncompact, gauge invariant simulations of U(1), SU(2), and SU(3), Phys. Lett. B365, 239 (1996), arXiv:hep-lat/9805010

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996
[41]

Palumbo, Gauge Invariance on the Lattice With Non- compact Gauge Fields, Phys

F. Palumbo, Gauge Invariance on the Lattice With Non- compact Gauge Fields, Phys. Lett. B244, 55 (1990), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 250, 212 (1990)]

work page 1990
[42]

C. M. Becchi and F. Palumbo, Compact and noncompact gauge theories on a lattice, Phys. Rev. D44, 946 (1991)

work page 1991
[43]

C. M. Becchi and F. Palumbo, Noncompact gauge theories on a lattice: Perturbative study of the scaling properties, Nucl. Phys. B388, 595 (1992)

work page 1992
[44]

Diekmann, D

B. Diekmann, D. Schutte, and H. Kroger, Hamiltonian for- mulation of Palumbo’s noncompact lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D49, 3589 (1994)

work page 1994
[45]

Borasoy, W

B. Borasoy, W. Kramer, and D. Schutte, Application of the Hamiltonian formulation of Palumbo’s new lattice Yang-Mills theory, Phys. Rev. D53, 2599 (1996)

work page 1996
[46]

Palumbo, M

F. Palumbo, M. I. Polikarpov, and A. I. Veselov, Confine- ment in noncompact nonAbelian gauge theories on the lattice, Phys. Lett. B297, 171 (1992)

work page 1992
[47]

Numerical study of the scaling properties of SU(2) lattice gauge theory in Palumbo non-compact regularization

G. Di Carlo and R. Scimia, Numerical study of the scaling properties of SU(2) lattice gauge theory in Palumbo non- compact regularization, Phys. Rev. D63, 094501 (2001), arXiv:hep-lat/0009019

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001
[48]

Babusci and F

D. Babusci and F. Palumbo, Modified Abelian and SU(2) Wilson theories on a lattice from a noncompact regulariza- tion, Phys. Rev. D110, 094511 (2024), arXiv:2407.13359 [hep-lat]

work page arXiv 2024
[49]

Bonati, A

C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Breaking of Gauge Symmetry in Lattice Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 091601 (2021), arXiv:2104.09892 [hep-lat]

work page arXiv 2021
[50]

Bonati, A

C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Lattice gauge theories in the presence of a linear gauge-symmetry break- ing, Phys. Rev. E104, 014140 (2021), arXiv:2106.02503 [hep-lat]

work page arXiv 2021
[51]

A. M. Childs and Y. Su, Nearly Optimal Lattice Simula- tion by Product Formulas, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 050503 (2019), arXiv:1901.00564 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2019
[52]

Anand and P

N. Anand and P. Zanardi, BROTOCs and Quantum In- formation Scrambling at Finite Temperature, Quantum 6, 746 (2022), arXiv:2111.07086 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[53]

E. J. Gustafson and H. Lamm, Preparing Fermions via Classical Sampling and Linear Combinations of Unitaries (2026), arXiv:2603.22422 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2026
[54]

R. I. McLachlan and P. Atela, The accuracy of symplectic integrators, Nonlinearity5, 541 (1992). 9

work page 1992
[55]

Hairer, G

E. Hairer, G. Wanner, and C. Lubich, Examples and nu- merical experiments, inGeometric Numerical Integration: Structure-Preserving Algorithms for Ordinary Differential Equations(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg,

work page
[56]

Kan and Y

A. Kan and Y. Nam, Lattice Quantum Chromodynamics and Electrodynamics on a Universal Quantum Computer (2021), arXiv:2107.12769 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[57]

M. L. Rhodes, M. Kreshchuk, and S. Pathak, Exponential Improvements in the Simulation of Lattice Gauge Theories Using Near-Optimal Techniques, PRX Quantum5, 040347 (2024), arXiv:2405.10416 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[58]

N. J. Ross and P. Selinger, Optimal ancilla-free Clifford+T approximation of z-rotations, Quantum Inf. Comput.16, 901 (2016), arXiv:1403.2975

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[59]

T. D. Cohen, H. Lamm, S. Lawrence, and Y. Ya- mauchi, Quantum algorithms for transport coefficients in gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D104, 094514 (2021), arXiv:2104.02024

work page arXiv 2021
[60]

Carena, H

M. Carena, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, and W. Liu, Lattice renormalization of quantum simulations, Phys. Rev. D 104, 094519 (2021), arXiv:2107.01166 [hep-lat]

work page arXiv 2021
[61]

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

work page arXiv 2024
[62]

A. N. Ciavarella, I. M. Burbano, and C. W. Bauer, Ef- ficient Truncations of SU(Nc) Lattice Gauge Theory for Quantum Simulation, Phys. Rev. D112, 054514 (2025), arXiv:2503.11888

work page arXiv 2025
[63]

Lamm, Y.-Y

H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, J. Shu, Y.-L. Wang, and B. Xu, Block encodings of discrete subgroups on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. D110, 054505 (2024), arXiv:2405.12890 [hep- lat]

work page arXiv 2024
[64]

Balaji, C

P. Balaji, C. Conefrey-Shinozaki, P. Draper, J. K. El- haderi, D. Gupta, L. Hidalgo, A. Lytle, and E. Rinaldi, Quantum circuits for su(3) lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D112, 054511 (2025)

work page 2025
[65]

Balaji, C

P. Balaji, C. Conefrey-Shinozaki, P. Draper, J. K. El- haderi, D. Gupta, L. Hidalgo, and A. Lytle, Perturbation theory, irrep truncations, and state preparation methods for quantum simulations of SU(3) lattice gauge theory (2025), arXiv:2509.25865 [hep-lat]

work page arXiv 2025
[66]

E. M. Murairi, M. J. Cervia, H. Kumar, P. F. Bedaque, and A. Alexandru, How many quantum gates do gauge theories require?, Phys. Rev. D106, 094504 (2022), arXiv:2208.11789 [hep-lat]

work page arXiv 2022
[67]

Davoudi, A

Z. Davoudi, A. F. Shaw, and J. R. Stryker, General quan- tum algorithms for Hamiltonian simulation with applica- tions to a non-Abelian lattice gauge theory, Quantum7, 1213 (2023), arXiv:2212.14030 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[68]

Lloyd, Universal Quantum Simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

S. Lloyd, Universal Quantum Simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

work page 1996
[69]

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

work page arXiv 2024